The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion.

This provocative book, by a professor of law at Yale University, is important mainly because it has been touted by Yale Law alumnus Bill Clinton.

The author is concerned that "our political and legal cultures treat religious beliefs as arbitrary and unimportant." He writes:

There may have been times in our

history when we as a nation have

tilted too far in one direction, allowing

too much religious sway

over politics. But in late-twentieth-century

America, despite

some loud fears about the influence

of the weak and divided

Christian right, we are upsetting

the balance afresh by tilting too

far in the other direction--and the

courts are assisting in the effort. As can be seen, Carter clearly under, estimates the power of religious militancy and extremism and the impact that religiously intolerant and authoritarian groups are having on the political, educational, and legal frameworks of our society.

Carter is right on some issues. He refers to church-state separation as "the durable and vital doctrine that shields our public institutions from religious domination and our religious institutions from government domination" He also affirms that "religions that most need protection seem to receive it least," referring to the free-exercise claims of minority religious groups under the Rehnquist Supreme Court. He says that "religious pluralism and equality--never mere |toleration'--should be essential parts of what makes American democracy special."

On government-sponsored creches and religious symbols on public property, Carter says: "In a world of religious equality this plain religious preference by the government is insupportable" He worries that "the political process will dangerous to democracy. Carter shows little sensitivity to the dangers of religious oppression in America, evidence of which is found abundantly both in our history and in the history of other nations. He ignores Chief Justice Warren Burger's warning that "political division along religious lines" was one of the principal evils that the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

There are many errors in the book. The Lee v. Weisman graduation-prayer case came from Rhode Island, not Long Island. The author or his editor apparently does not know the difference between a jeremiad and a jihad. Kansas is no longer a "dry" state, having abolished statewide prohibition in 1958. The Catholic theologian is Richard McBrien, not O'Brien. The Supreme Court has not upheld tuition-reimbursement tax credits but only limited tax deductions. John Dewey was not ant-religious.

Finally, though Carter's book is stimulating and thoughtful, it is riddled with confused interpretations of fact and history, lapses of logic, and fuzzy thinking. And from the book's extensive notes, it is clear that the author relied too heavily on conservative sources.