Dr. Richard Land talks about
"The Divided States of America"

Added May 14, 2007

Joyce: In the Library Reviews welcomes Dr. Richard Land.

In your book, The Divided States of America?, I sensed an urgent appeal on your behalf for unity. How can this country start to work toward that goal? Where must this change of attitude and ideas originate--in individuals or at the leadership level?

Richard: By their "yin and yang" practice of journalism, the media are feeding the idea that America is more divided than it actually is. They use a pre-screening process to find two people who hold the most extreme views they can find Then they get those people to go on television and yell at one another in the most caustic and corrosive terms. Perhaps this creates good sound bites for the media, but it does little to advance dialogue on the issues.

America is not that divided. There are clearly issues about which we have significant and deep disagreements, but there is more common ground than the media would lead us to believe. Perhaps more than a call for unity, my book is a call for civility It's a call for us to find common ground and to practice civility in those areas where we disagree so that we discuss issues in a dignified and productive manner. We must stick to issues and not impugn people's motives. We must have a commitment to the rule of law, to the democratic process, and to civility in our nation's discussions about the direction of our country and the issues that confront us as a people.

The question of where change should begin is not a question of either individuals or leadership. It's a question of "both/and." Individuals should make a commitment to this change and "discussion paradigm," if you will, and they also need to insist upon it from their leaders. If people respond to potential leaders who embrace this paradigm and these commitments to practicing civility and finding common ground and reject potential leaders who seek to polarize and who are not conducting themselves in a civil manner, then we'll have better leaders. They will express themselves in the kinds of ways that the people want.

So each of us, as individual Americans, has a role to play in elevating the civility and the nature of the dialogue, discussion, and debate that takes place in our country.

Joyce: Do you think the 2008 Presidential race will further polarize the issues or are leaders starting to understand the destructive nature of their rhetoric?

Richard: The answer to that question depends entirely on the nature of the potential candidates and the people's reaction to them. If people respond well to those who are seeking common ground and civility, then the presidential race will take a higher tone. It will be elevated to a debate that can be constructive for the nation's future. If people respond positively to those who polarize, then we will have a presidential race that will further divide our country and further narrow the area of common ground. So it's really up to us as a people, individually and collectively, to determine what kind of debate we will have.

Joyce: Do you think our country would benefit from a third political party?

Richard: No. Our system, as it has developed, is extremely prejudiced in favor of a two-party system. A third party can only have an impact is if it gives voice to an issue that has reached critical mass-like the anti-slavery issue did in the 1850s-and the two political parties are not responding. In the 1850s, both the Democratic and the Whig Parties were trying to be pro-choice on slavery. Anti-slavery sentiment had reached critical mass, and the Republican Party was the vehicle that expressed it. The Whigs, the weaker of the two main parties, died and was replaced by the Republicans. We've really only had one successful third party, and it was successful only because it managed to take the place of a second. I would encourage people who are frustrated with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to get involved in seeking to make those two parties more what they want them to be instead of trying to start a third party. I deal with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on a regular basis, and they both can use more help than all the people of faith in America can give them in becoming the parties that the people would want them to be.

Joyce: Will our country some day be a secular nation? Historically speaking, has any nation prospered without ascribing belief in God?

Richard: Our country could become a secular nation if the majority of our people are no longer attending religious services on a regular basis and religion has ceased to be important to them. Then, in this representative democracy that we have in the United States, not only would we have a secular government-and 99.9 percent of Americans want a secular government-but we would have a secular nation.

And that would be tragic for our nation, for people of faith have played critical roles in our history for good on a whole host of besetting moral and public policy issues.

One's notion of prosperity depends on how it is defined. I would argue that prosperity includes human rights: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom of the press-the basic freedoms that we take for granted in the United States. Certainly there have been other nations that have been powerful economically and/or militarily. But no nation has "prospered" in terms of the successful defense of human rights and freedom of the individual person other than governments and societies that were committed to belief in God or a higher authority to whom they were responsible.

Joyce: How can Christians stay properly informed about the issues without relying on biased media coverage? Where can sources of truth be found?

Richard: We should get our news from a balanced array of sources in the same way that we should eat a balanced diet.

I once had a nutritionist tell me you shouldn't get all of your nutrients from one source. I would say the same thing about your information on public policy issues.

If you're going to listen to one of the network newscasts or CNN, then you should probably also listen to Fox News. You get a balanced view from listening to those two sides and approaches.

In the same way, if you're going to read Time or Newsweek, then you should also read World magazine, The Weekly Standard, and/or The National Review to give you a different perspective on the same issues.

If you're going to listen to National Public Radio, then you probably should listen to conservative talk radio and religious radio to give you balance.

We welcome everyone to visit our Web site, erlc.com, to read the biblical worldview on the issues of the day and sign up to receive our magazine and e-mail newsletter.

There is no magic bullet. You have to make the effort to be informed by a variety of sources. Then you have to make up your own mind about your values, your beliefs, and your commitments and how they relate to the public arena.

Joyce: What's needed to break this current cultural impasse?

Richard: Informed involvement, discussion, and commitment to the rule of law. If we don't like a law, we should make a commitment to change it, not disregard it or disrespect it. As a person of faith, I believe that it will be difficult to successfully solve many of the tremendously difficult issues that face us as a nation without a spiritual and religious awakening that impacts all levels of society.

Joyce: What do you want your readers to do after they turn the last page in your book?

Richard: First, I want them to realize that there is more common ground in America than they have been led to believe-and that people holding all positions about the proper role of religious views in societal debates can do a better job of presenting their views and listening respectfully to the views of others.

Second, I want them to examine their own views more critically and make sure they are not assuming either that God is on their side or that God does not have a side on the important public policy issues that confront us as a nation.

Third, I want them to understand that people of faith have played an invaluable role in our nation's past. If they do not play a continuing and similar role in our nation's future, our future will be far more bleak than it would be otherwise.

Fourth, I want them to be prepared to argue that, historically, separation of church and state was not a doctrine that required the separation of religiously based and informed moral convictions from national policy debates.

Fifth, I want them to get involved in the critical debates going on in our society and seek to make a difference in dispelling misconceptions and myths about various religious traditions. Actively promote an understanding that the American tradition is one that values pluralism, a respectful place for all views and beliefs in the public square, religious and non-religious, as opposed to the neo-establishment of one religion or of secularist faith that wants to exclude religious expression from the public square.

Return to top of page.

This page was last updated on January 1, 2008

This page and all its contents are Copyright© 2002-2008 In the Library Reviews and the individual reviewers. Except where noted, all graphics are Copyright© Eos Development and are used with permission. All book covers are Copyright© their respective publishers and are used with permission. The In the Library Reviews logo is Copyright© 2002 by In the Library Reviews/Sharyn McGinty. Site maintained by In the Library Reviews.