What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of Civility: How Religion Can Unite America on Seven Moral Issues that Divide Us
From "the big four" (abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and stem-cell research) to war, poverty, and the environment, this timely book considers religion's impact on moral debates in America's past and present. James Calvin Davis argues for religion's potential to enrich both the content and the civility of public conversation. This book will interest all concerned citizens yearning for more careful thinking about the role of religion in public debate.
- GenresReligion
216 pages, Paperback
First published September 21, 2010
1 person is currently reading
34 people want to read
About the author
James Calvin Davis
12 books1 followerJames Calvin Davis is the George Adams Ellis Professor of Liberal Arts and Religion at Middlebury College (VT), where he teaches ethics and Christian Studies.
http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/r...
His most recent book, released in February 2021, is American Liturgy: Finding Theological Meaning in the Holy Days of US Culture (Cascade). In this book, Davis uses essays on (mostly) secular holidays to reflect on the insight progressive Christian faith can bring to American identity, as well as the wisdom American culture sometimes can shed on our responsibilities as Christians.
His last book, Forbearance: A Theological Ethic for a Disagreeable Church (Eerdmans, 2017), offered guidance for how Christians can see the challenge of navigating religious, moral, and political disagreement as an opportunity to practice virtue, and in doing so to model for the world a better way for living with difference.
A Reformed Christian theologian and expert on religion in American public life, Davis writes widely on the ways Christianity has contributed (positively and negatively) to a range of moral issues in the United States, throughout the nation's history and today. In his writing, lecturing, and teaching, he insists that historical and theological perspectives can offer needed wisdom for a healthier public life in the US.
A graduate of the University of Virginia, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and a life-long Steelers fan, Davis lives in rural Shoreham, Vermont, with his wife Elizabeth and their two sons.
http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/r...
His most recent book, released in February 2021, is American Liturgy: Finding Theological Meaning in the Holy Days of US Culture (Cascade). In this book, Davis uses essays on (mostly) secular holidays to reflect on the insight progressive Christian faith can bring to American identity, as well as the wisdom American culture sometimes can shed on our responsibilities as Christians.
His last book, Forbearance: A Theological Ethic for a Disagreeable Church (Eerdmans, 2017), offered guidance for how Christians can see the challenge of navigating religious, moral, and political disagreement as an opportunity to practice virtue, and in doing so to model for the world a better way for living with difference.
A Reformed Christian theologian and expert on religion in American public life, Davis writes widely on the ways Christianity has contributed (positively and negatively) to a range of moral issues in the United States, throughout the nation's history and today. In his writing, lecturing, and teaching, he insists that historical and theological perspectives can offer needed wisdom for a healthier public life in the US.
A graduate of the University of Virginia, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and a life-long Steelers fan, Davis lives in rural Shoreham, Vermont, with his wife Elizabeth and their two sons.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 15, 2012
If you are a political junkie or if you shy away from politics because it's "too messy," this book is for you. If you are disturbed by bickering extremists and wonder how the rest of the population (Rev. Davis calls them "the muddled middle") fits in, this book is for you. If you have been guilty of incivility in your own discussions with those you don't agree with, this book is most definitely for you.
The premise is this: Our political discourse isn't civil, it's just plain ugly. Particularly when we talk about "moral issues" (abortion, fetal stem cell research, euthanasia, and homosexual marriage) and the "moral values" that accompany them (the conservative position on such issues). The arguments are constantly defined as those from the "Christian nation" vs. those who are "secular progressives." There are many problems with this set-up. One problem, as noted by Rev. Davis, is that there is a whole lot of gray between those lines. Both sides quote the Bible, historical information - particularly from the founding fathers, and court cases as it serves them. However, these are mostly clever cherry-picking. The other, even more troubling problem, is that there are many moral values and to let "the big 4" and the conservative positions on the big 4 corner the market is to leave out something substantial.
Piecing together those things, we are able to see that in fact there is clear evidence for religious people to offer their opinions in these debates, because for them, their religion and their morality are tied. And often, within these debates, we find that it's the competing moral values that are at odds rather than "moral" vs. "immoral."
It's a very nice read and doesn't get too bogged down in the academia that sometimes plagues these sorts of research-based books. Instead, it's a breezy read, one that can be read a chapter at a time or straight through. It is written by a Presbyterian minister and there is an agenda here, but it may not be the one you think. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, you can learn something from this book. No matter what you consider your religion, or lack of religion, there is likely something for you here. Even if all you get from the book is how to be civil in your everyday relationships, I think it's a success.
I had the pleasure of attending a seminar taught by Rev. Davis and I found the discussion about the book and the book itself to be thought-provoking long after they were done.
The premise is this: Our political discourse isn't civil, it's just plain ugly. Particularly when we talk about "moral issues" (abortion, fetal stem cell research, euthanasia, and homosexual marriage) and the "moral values" that accompany them (the conservative position on such issues). The arguments are constantly defined as those from the "Christian nation" vs. those who are "secular progressives." There are many problems with this set-up. One problem, as noted by Rev. Davis, is that there is a whole lot of gray between those lines. Both sides quote the Bible, historical information - particularly from the founding fathers, and court cases as it serves them. However, these are mostly clever cherry-picking. The other, even more troubling problem, is that there are many moral values and to let "the big 4" and the conservative positions on the big 4 corner the market is to leave out something substantial.
Piecing together those things, we are able to see that in fact there is clear evidence for religious people to offer their opinions in these debates, because for them, their religion and their morality are tied. And often, within these debates, we find that it's the competing moral values that are at odds rather than "moral" vs. "immoral."
It's a very nice read and doesn't get too bogged down in the academia that sometimes plagues these sorts of research-based books. Instead, it's a breezy read, one that can be read a chapter at a time or straight through. It is written by a Presbyterian minister and there is an agenda here, but it may not be the one you think. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, you can learn something from this book. No matter what you consider your religion, or lack of religion, there is likely something for you here. Even if all you get from the book is how to be civil in your everyday relationships, I think it's a success.
I had the pleasure of attending a seminar taught by Rev. Davis and I found the discussion about the book and the book itself to be thought-provoking long after they were done.
August 22, 2024
I read this book as part of a small group Bible study. Most of it was really well written and thought-provoking. While it is written by a pastor, it is not intended to promote any particular set of theological or moral beliefs. What it IS meant to do is to give people a framework for seeing/considering that even those who disagree with us do so from their own set of beliefs and convictions. Most of the beliefs and convictions that people hold are subjective and borne from their indoctrination and past life experiences. Trying to recognize and consider the part of such people that we hold in common with them can help to bridge gaps when we do not share their position.
Trying to take the vitriol out of the equation is the first step in having a more civil society. All of us should want that, in spite of the differences that everyone recognizes exist. For that reason, books like this are a great first step. Reading this does not solve all (or any) of the problems. But it offers a different perspective on our neighbors who do not always agree with us.
Trying to take the vitriol out of the equation is the first step in having a more civil society. All of us should want that, in spite of the differences that everyone recognizes exist. For that reason, books like this are a great first step. Reading this does not solve all (or any) of the problems. But it offers a different perspective on our neighbors who do not always agree with us.
February 16, 2020
Wonderful book written by Professor Davis! His ethics class was one of the best classes I took at Middlebury College.
Read
August 13, 2011A worthwhile book. The subtitle, "How religion can unite America," is potentially misleading. Davis is a believer, but he's not claiming that public moral debate is an arid, faithless wasteland that needs an injection of religion to save itself from itself. He's saying that people who happen to be religious should be listened to and not have their ideas ruled out of court. Religion belongs in public discourse partly because some people are already religious, because dialogue is important, and because the simple fact that some people don't derive their values from religion shouldn't silence those who do nor exclude them from a fruitful discussion.
The book's purpose is framed by an opening anecdote in which, in the 2004 National Election Pool exit poll, 22% of voters said that "moral values" were the most important issue to them, and 80% of these voted for Bush--but it wasn't immediately clear what these "moral values" were. Later that year, the Pew Research Center asked people to define the term. Over half said that it referred to abortion and homosexuality, but that left many other definitions, including the content of television programs. Davis says that "the conversation over issues as different as abortion and climate change is itself a moral endeavor, in which every American has a responsibility to participate." (p. 17)
Davis says it's important to realize that left-wing people also consider their moral values to be very important to their decision making. In defending the left, he says that public debates between conservatives and liberals shouldn't be framed as debates between "moral values" and "other approaches". As he put it, "the 'moral values debate' is really a debate between moral agendas, not for or against them." (p. 7) In defending the right, he says it's important to appreciate that religious people's moral worldviews are informed by their religions, and therefore it doesn't make sense to try to excise religion from the public debate.
He identifies relativism as "the belief that all perspectives are equally valid claims of truth." (p. 69) "So," he asks, "if civility is not passivity or relativism, then what is it? I like to define civility as the exercise of patience, integrity, humility, and mutual respect in civil conversation, even (or especially) with those with whom we disagree." (p. 159) Patience means taking the time to understand someone else's position. Integrity means, in part, taking the time to understand your own so that you don't commit hypocrisy. As for humility and respect: We can respect each other without believing we're all correct. Respect simply demands listening to other, respecting the conviction that drives another person's opinion, being humble enough to believe that one's own judgment might be wrong and that the other person's might be right, being open to having one's mind changed, and still continuing to respect the other person even while one believes their moral judgment to be wrong.
The book's purpose is framed by an opening anecdote in which, in the 2004 National Election Pool exit poll, 22% of voters said that "moral values" were the most important issue to them, and 80% of these voted for Bush--but it wasn't immediately clear what these "moral values" were. Later that year, the Pew Research Center asked people to define the term. Over half said that it referred to abortion and homosexuality, but that left many other definitions, including the content of television programs. Davis says that "the conversation over issues as different as abortion and climate change is itself a moral endeavor, in which every American has a responsibility to participate." (p. 17)
Davis says it's important to realize that left-wing people also consider their moral values to be very important to their decision making. In defending the left, he says that public debates between conservatives and liberals shouldn't be framed as debates between "moral values" and "other approaches". As he put it, "the 'moral values debate' is really a debate between moral agendas, not for or against them." (p. 7) In defending the right, he says it's important to appreciate that religious people's moral worldviews are informed by their religions, and therefore it doesn't make sense to try to excise religion from the public debate.
He identifies relativism as "the belief that all perspectives are equally valid claims of truth." (p. 69) "So," he asks, "if civility is not passivity or relativism, then what is it? I like to define civility as the exercise of patience, integrity, humility, and mutual respect in civil conversation, even (or especially) with those with whom we disagree." (p. 159) Patience means taking the time to understand someone else's position. Integrity means, in part, taking the time to understand your own so that you don't commit hypocrisy. As for humility and respect: We can respect each other without believing we're all correct. Respect simply demands listening to other, respecting the conviction that drives another person's opinion, being humble enough to believe that one's own judgment might be wrong and that the other person's might be right, being open to having one's mind changed, and still continuing to respect the other person even while one believes their moral judgment to be wrong.
September 3, 2014
Great little read. *Almost* pipe-dreamish, but grounded enough to be plenty relevant.
June 7, 2012
A really good book I wish everyone would read. We really could use more civility in our politics these days.
May 28, 2012
Excellent review of major arguments currently dividing people of faith. The author does a very good job of keeping an even handed review issues and creating avenues for conversation.
November 22, 2014
Loved using this in a Sunday School class at Faith Presbyterian in Rincon. We had great discussions.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews