Peter J. Gomes ("The New Liberation Theology," November-December 1996) shares the Christian Coalition's conviction that "religion has a rightful, legitimate place at the center of our culture." He blames the "bankruptcy of secularism" for forcing questions of values onto the purview of the religious conservatives.

Illustration by Cynthia Von Buhler

Unfortunately, there is no consensus about which religious values are candidates for placement at the center of our culture. The diversity and clash of religious beliefs require, for the sake of social tranquility, that the values of one or any religion be kept separate from the functions of the state and away from areas of common concern.

Fortunately, secularism, as manifested in the rise of liberal democracy, has brought about an acceptance of certain human values long and still opposed by many religious conservatives. We need only look at the progress made in this century on racial equality, universal suffrage, gay rights, and the access to modern methods of contraception to see examples of what a society free from the control of conservative religious forces can achieve. If the Christian Coalition were successful in introducing its religious values into the center of our culture, we would run the risk of witnessing a reversal of the progress made by Gomes's dreaded "secularism."

Nicholas Johnson, Ph.D. '63
Lincoln, Mass.

Gomes calls on us to ask again the great questions "What is good?" and "How do we act upon it?" and goes on to say that the "bankruptcy of secularism has forced the questions out of the closet, and religious conservatives have given them a new and strident urgency." He is certainly right about the stridency, but the claim that secular approaches to the great ethical questions have all proven "bankrupt" is extraordinary coming from a Harvard professor. Does he wish to discredit the brilliant-and entirely secular-work on these questions by such colleagues as John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Tim Scanlon, and Amartya Sen? Harvard's philosophers are studied around the world by thinkers in a host of disciplines, including policymakers and advisers at the highest levels. Secular ethicists at Harvard and many other universities have never been more influential than they are at present, or more appreciated for their professional contributions to resolving today's most vexing moral dilemmas. The stridency of the religious right is in fact a testimony to the vigor of secular approaches to ethics.

Daniel C. Dennett '63
Medford, Mass.

When I read Gomes's opening paragraph, I remembered listening to him at my graduation. He offered us a parting prayer as I, a Jewish woman, sat on the floor of Memorial Church under the symbols of a religion that is not mine.

After receiving his blessing, I was left with a profound feeling of discomfort. I turned to a friend sitting next to me, also Jewish, and she confessed the same feeling to me. We quickly and quietly said a shehecheyanu, the Jewish blessing for new beginnings.

Thus, when I read Gomes's assertion that his graduation prayer, along with "prayers...at presidential inaugurals...and 'God bless America' at the end of every politician's speech," is both "inevitable" and "harmless," I was dismayed and angry. Gomes claims this harmlessness for "religiosity," which he defines as "the appearance of religion without its substance or consequence." I submit that religion can never be decontextualized in this way, particularly in a democratic country committed to religious pluralism, and particularly when religion is mixed with politics. The God with whom politicians bless America is not my God. It is a specifically Christian God.

To attempt to empty these political-religious gestures of their historical and cultural meaning, or their "substance and consequence," in the service of some kind of false inclusiveness is dangerous. For me, this danger is not abstract: the mixture of religion with politics threatens my status as a citizen and my rights as a minority.

Melissa Weininger '95
San Francisco

Gomes finds it ironic that at a naturalization ceremony he presided over at Plymouth Rock in which the mention of God was expressly forbidden by the federal district court, most of the new citizens concluded their swearing-in with the words "God Bless America." I see nothing ironic in it. One of the new liberties the new Americans had just earned was precisely the right to profess their belief in God as openly as they wished, as do 96 percent of Americans according to a recent poll. But another liberty is the one guaranteed to the other 4 percent who profess the opposite. I think a greater irony lies in the fact that the word "liberal," which until very lately meant open-handed, generous, tolerant-adjectives that have often been applied to Jesus-is now the most opprobious epithet in the lexicon of the Christian Coalition.

Albert L. Reiner '36
Greenbrae, Calif.

Gomes decries the dangerous theocratic bent of the Christian Coalition yet is "grateful...for [their] insistence that religious values, not religious symbols, be restored to the center of our cultural and political discourse."

Would our "founding fathers" have shared his gratitude? They seem to have taken care that their government would not impose religion on its people nor require oaths of them. Aren't those who place [religious] values at the center opening the door to theocentric zealots?

Moreover, the Coalition is not "neither necessarily Republican nor Democrat." While they sometimes publicly maintain that they are nonpartisan (thus preserving their tax status), privately (and illegally, given that status) they single out and support only Republican candidates, and of the most extreme opinions. One Coalitionist, in a 1992 Virginia Beach meeting, received great applause when he declared, "It is impossible for a Christian to vote for a Democrat."

I suggest that Gomes look at the Coalition as primarily a political movement, cemented together by fears he recognized as "xenophobic" and "paranoid" and their weird "fundamentalist" readings of the Bible, which I hope he can clear up with his new book, The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart.

Jonathan Macy '59
Boston

I do not view with alarm the increasing religious plurality of our country as described by Professor Diana Eck in "Neighboring Faiths" (September-October 1996). Although as an evangelical Christian, I sincerely desire (and pray for) the eventual conversion to Christianity by members of other faiths, this is not inconsistent with a desire to allow everyone the freedom of his or her conscience in matters of faith. If God has given each of us a free will (and I believe he has), I can have no interest in coercing anyone.

Any future clashes between faith groups in the United States are likely to revolve around cultural norms, which may or may not be rooted in America's Christian heritage. I have lived in Nigeria, and seen firsthand the differences in an Islamic culture. Agnostic or indifferent Americans may want to travel to several Islamic countries before they speak too loudly in favor of a society (or an America) that puts Islam on an equal footing with Christianity. The poor treatment and status of women in Islamic countries is one area where Americans of all stripes would "beg to differ." The greatest amount of religious persecution these days is occurring not in formerly atheistic countries, but in Islamic countries. Amnesty International and the Open Doors organization have provided significant documentation. The objects of this persecution are largely Christians and Jews.

In short, American Muslims and members of other "nontraditional" American faiths must be willing to embrace certain American cultural norms and values to gain social acceptance here. I think most Americans are pleased that our society has been welcoming and accommodating.

Two final thoughts. First, wouldn't it be great if Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, et al. were as kind to Christians as America has been to Muslims? Second, what if an American Islamic sect were to declare "jihad" within our borders?

John F. Brooks, M.P.A. '92
West Mystic, Conn.

Photograph by Jim Harrison

I was amused by "Crimson in Triumph Flashing" in your November-December 1996 issue. Perhaps understandably, the article failed to mention the brief period in the 1870s when magenta replaced crimson as the University's color. For several years, the Crimson was even known as The Magenta.

Richard Smoley '78
San Francisco

Editor's note: see "The College Pump" for more on crimson and magenta.