Born Again in the U.S.A.
Religion and modernity were never expected to go hand in hand, and for centuries they coexisted uncomfortably. But thanks to the entrepreneurial model of American evangelicals, argue two journalists at The Economist, God is back.
Related
Religion has always been a major force in U.S. politics, but the recent surge in the number and the power of evangelicals is recasting the country's political scene -- with dramatic implications for foreign policy. This should not be cause for panic: evangelicals are passionately devoted to justice and improving the world, and eager to reach out across sectarian lines.
On any single Sunday, almost as many Americans attend church services as go to all the major sporting events held in this country during an entire year. From its very origins, the United States has claimed a belief in a unique ethical foundation, a nation, as G.K. Chesterton said, "with the soul of a Church." Waves of immigrants assimilated the conviction that there exists a peculiarly American covenant with God and that the destiny and guidance of this nation, both in personal and national affairs, derives from that special compact. What was true in peace was assumed in war as well. The persuasion runs deep that America carries a moral banner into battle.
Americans with no sense of history take their self-image from myth, including that of the 'good war'. At the core of the US myth one finds "an essentially religious value system" and "the symbolism of a New World" giving rise in both US parties to 'progressives' who wish to reform a corrupted world and 'purifiers' who wish to keep the USA unsullied by it. The myth rejects the rituals and cynicism of 'grand strategy' and looks instead to the 'just war' with its moral aims. Yet reality has failed the myth -- in the post-1945 nuclear stalemate and in limited wars such as Vietnam. From this has come Reagan's 'de facto' policy of limitation. However dangerous some of its Third World 'margins' may be, the world no longer threatens US values.

User Comments
the idea
I have not read the book, but culling a little from what is available, perhaps one can put forth one's thoughts over the issue.
Primarily, how would one define God? Secondly, how would one, then - an important then - define religion?
How would one define modernity? In our answers to such questions, we have our answers, including our self-definitions.
To my mind there exists no contradiction between the acceptance of the supernatural and the acceptance of modernity. In my limited comprehension, modernity should infact help one better in one's 'quest' - an important aspect in how that gets defined in our defining the first two/three questions - for the universe (if that word be adequate to represent one's objective for a 'quest' after one determines more or less what that is or would be}. Or even answers to certain fundamental queries or mere wonderings.
In our answers to those questions, we set for ourselves our own realities and worlds.
Tragedies usually happen when we tend to enforce our realities upon others! Perhaps the greater one's comprehension is of the above questions - in the answers that one provides or attempts to provide for them (even as we thus then define ourselves - even in mimickry) - the better it is for democracy to emerge as a natural condition.
So perhaps, the idea of an entrepreneurial model merely defines particular limitations that has a bearing upon democracy as well. Since for democracy to be really successful, it would also need that basic education and recognition - of the rights and privileges of oneself as well as that of the another person. And respecting those. As long as one recognizes the basic condition that the another person enjoys an equal right as oneself - respecting that immediately becomes an attendant duty or a natural corollary. Rights & Duties are thus inseparable.
To my comprehension, neither an adequate comprehension of the questions dealing with God and/or religion (since ideologies too breed the same outputs in their varieties) nor that of modernity would mean any problem in joyful co-habitation. I would really welcome a healthy child from such a co-habitation. Though one needs to add that socialism as seen and understood in many parts of the world or even communism barely springs to one's mind. Democracy that respects individual freedom does spring up as a natural condition. How rich or how poor or how thick or how thin? Well!?