Status
Coming Soon
Call number
Collection
Publication
St. Martin's Press (2013), Edition: First Edition, 256 pages
Description
Traces the arc of American religious discrimination, revealing a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance, from colonial anti-Quaker sentiment and Judaism to today's Muslims, Sikhs, and other religious groups under fire.
User reviews
LibraryThing member TLCrawford
Peter Gottschalk is a professor of religion at Wesleyan University, his book American heretics : Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and the history of religious intolerance reflects that bias. It seems that he has never met a “religion” that he didn’t like. Gottschalk does examine several of
Gottschalk strongly objects to the word “Cult”. He prefers “New Religious Movement”. It is telling that he first uses the term to describe the Branch Davidians and not for the Ghost Dance movement which really was a new speciality that went beyond individual tribes traditional beliefs. He also seems to fully accept the later addition of polygamy to the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints and David Koresh’s instance on having sex with the wives and daughters of parishioners as normal parts of religious life. A religious leader having sex with a minor, David Koresh or a modern LDS polygamist, is still a criminal. They are also perverting their religion for personal advantages. Only male’s with the wealth to support multiple families were permitted multiple wifes. Only Koresh had license to sexually sample all the woman in his church. In both cases church members objected that this practice was not part of their faith but the overwhelming power of the charismatic leaders stifled resistance.
Isn’t there some point where “religion” becomes and has to be recognized as an evil influence, a cult? If there is such a line to be crossed you will not find it in this book. I think that Gottschalk’s intention is to argue that Islam is being misrepresented, the violence that some factions preach are not the real Islam and the actions of those few are being used for political and economic advantage by many vocal Americans, that conservative fear, not Islam, is at the root of the recent waves of hate crimes and publicity stunts aimed at Muslims. His thesis is true but his argument lacks persuasion. Reading the book it seems that he is saying that promiscuity and violence are simply normal advances in religious thought. That Koresh and the latter-day revelation endorsing polygamy were valid advances of their faith and not just, as my wife would say, male pigs behaving like pigs. How can he point out that violence is not part of Islam if he refuses to notice that sexual promiscuity is not part of Seventh Day Adventism or part of the original tenets of the Church of Latter-Day Saints?
Read Joseph Gaer’s “What the Great Religions Believe” if you are curious about Islam or Tyler G. Anbinder’s “Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s” to understand the political motivations behind anti-Catholicism thought. Gottschalk’s work here is well written but not well reasoned.
Show More
America’s prejudices, past and present. He looks at the oppression suffered by Quakers, Catholics, American Indians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and Branch Davidians. In the last chapter he tries tie together the factors that inspired this prejudice but uses examples that the never mentioned in the text, objections to Catholic’s mixed gender beer gardens, for one example. I understand the need for a conclusion but it needs to be supported in the text, not by evidence introduced only to support the conclusion. After all, his chapter is about Irish Catholics and the biergartens were the providence of German Catholics.Gottschalk strongly objects to the word “Cult”. He prefers “New Religious Movement”. It is telling that he first uses the term to describe the Branch Davidians and not for the Ghost Dance movement which really was a new speciality that went beyond individual tribes traditional beliefs. He also seems to fully accept the later addition of polygamy to the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints and David Koresh’s instance on having sex with the wives and daughters of parishioners as normal parts of religious life. A religious leader having sex with a minor, David Koresh or a modern LDS polygamist, is still a criminal. They are also perverting their religion for personal advantages. Only male’s with the wealth to support multiple families were permitted multiple wifes. Only Koresh had license to sexually sample all the woman in his church. In both cases church members objected that this practice was not part of their faith but the overwhelming power of the charismatic leaders stifled resistance.
Isn’t there some point where “religion” becomes and has to be recognized as an evil influence, a cult? If there is such a line to be crossed you will not find it in this book. I think that Gottschalk’s intention is to argue that Islam is being misrepresented, the violence that some factions preach are not the real Islam and the actions of those few are being used for political and economic advantage by many vocal Americans, that conservative fear, not Islam, is at the root of the recent waves of hate crimes and publicity stunts aimed at Muslims. His thesis is true but his argument lacks persuasion. Reading the book it seems that he is saying that promiscuity and violence are simply normal advances in religious thought. That Koresh and the latter-day revelation endorsing polygamy were valid advances of their faith and not just, as my wife would say, male pigs behaving like pigs. How can he point out that violence is not part of Islam if he refuses to notice that sexual promiscuity is not part of Seventh Day Adventism or part of the original tenets of the Church of Latter-Day Saints?
Read Joseph Gaer’s “What the Great Religions Believe” if you are curious about Islam or Tyler G. Anbinder’s “Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s” to understand the political motivations behind anti-Catholicism thought. Gottschalk’s work here is well written but not well reasoned.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Sarij
The comic Robin Williams once asked, “How uptight do you have to be in order for the British to tell you to get the fu*ck out?” He was talking about the Puritans and the beginning of American history. It may not be an accurate account of how things went down between the British government and
It is ironic that this small prosecuted group of religious extremists, once settled in the new world, would then turn around and prosecute those with conflicting religious beliefs.
Academics have been struggling with the contracting ideas of America as the home of the free and its insistence that it is primarily a Christian nation. We are free to believe, but in order to make it America, we better believe in standard Christian dogma.
I bet if we counted them all up, we’d find hundreds books devoted to our history of religious intolerance. Since 9/11 it seems you can’t walk into any bookstore without tripping over the latest theory on why we are so intolerant and what this has done to us as a nation. I’ve read a few. These authors have something to teach us, whether it is a plea for tolerance or a history lesson on religions clashes in America.
The better ones are by authors who write as an attempt to hold a mirror to our society. If they makes us squirm it is only because we find ourselves thinking a long the same lines as those we read about. We may feel discomfort in our ability to identify with one type of intolerance or another. The job of these authors is to make us rethink our views.
Professor Peter Gottschalk, of Wesleyan is not one of these authors. His book American Heretics Catholics Jews Muslims and the history of religious intolerance made me squirm because his idea(s) about who exactly is intolerant is questionable. I cannot for the life of me figure out what his agenda is, other than to be a published author. If I were his professor and he turned in any of these chapters as an essay, I’d question his ability to clearly define his point and ask if he may not in fact be showing signs of intolerance.
In his chapter titled, “Fanatics: Secular fears and Mormon political candidates from Joseph Smith Jr. to Mitt Romney”, Gottschalk offers a far too long view that the Mormon history is fraught with political intolerance; that, due to no fault of their own, Mormons have had a hard time in American politics. Oh yeah, like Smith didn’t invite trouble everywhere he went. While it is true, Romney’s religion was talked about ad nauseam, it did not stop him from being on the Republican ticket. A point Gottschalk concedes: “None of these issues (what it means to be Mormon) played a significant role in the 2012 campaign.” So why did write this chapter Professor? What was your point? It would have made much more sense to have a chapter devoted to the struggles of religious minority candidates and include Kennedy and ever other religious political first. Gottschalk spends so much time on Mormonism and politics readers may wonder if this is an argument for Romney 2016.
My least favorite of his chapters is titled, “It’s not a religion, it’s a cult: The Branch Davidians”. Here Gottschalk does offer some interesting ideas on the word cult and its modern connotation: “The label ‘cults’ suggests that the application of the word says more about those who apply it than those it purportedly describes”. His point is well taken. Too often we label a religion that we do not understand or feel comfortable with as a cult. Gottschalk then goes into the long history of the Branch Davidians and gives a blow by blow account of the disastrous siege of the Davidian compound by the U.S. government in order to convince readers that the government’s intolerance of cults led to the death of innocent people. While I do not disagree the government used unnecessary force, Gottschalk never considers why they did. Gottschalk failed to consider that the government may have had Jones Town and Rajneesh (Antelope Oregon) in mind when they decided to take action.
What bothered me the most was Gottschalk’s link to the disaster of Waco and the Oklahoma bombing. He says, “..the disaster at Waco represents an imperious government’s massacre of those asserting their rights of religious expression and gun ownership”. He then goes on to talk about Timothy McVeigh and how this massacre led him to bomb a government building. It does not occur to Gottschalk to explore the possibility that it is the fanatic who calls himself a Christian, yet demands to be armed to the teeth, that is the problem. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it is Christ who said, “You can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hand”. If I remember right, he said, “love your neighbor, turn the other cheek and the meek shall inherit the earth”. Timothy McVeigh was a very angry young man that was looking for any reason to get back at the government he thought had wronged him. If Waco had not happened something else would have set him off. It would have served Gottschalk better had he noted that religious fanatics and weapons are never a good mix.
Some of Gottschalk’s chapters do offer historical accounts of religious intolerance yet he fails to look deeply at the root causes of these cases. He fails to show his readers the reasons Muslim extremists hate the western culture or how some Christian leaders pushed an ant-Muslim view on their followers after 9/11. This is the heart of the problem with Gottschalk’s book. He blames everything but religion on religious intolerance.
Show More
this young Protestant break away religious group but the point is taken. This was a very uptight religious group, prosecuted for their fanatical ways. It is ironic that this small prosecuted group of religious extremists, once settled in the new world, would then turn around and prosecute those with conflicting religious beliefs.
Academics have been struggling with the contracting ideas of America as the home of the free and its insistence that it is primarily a Christian nation. We are free to believe, but in order to make it America, we better believe in standard Christian dogma.
I bet if we counted them all up, we’d find hundreds books devoted to our history of religious intolerance. Since 9/11 it seems you can’t walk into any bookstore without tripping over the latest theory on why we are so intolerant and what this has done to us as a nation. I’ve read a few. These authors have something to teach us, whether it is a plea for tolerance or a history lesson on religions clashes in America.
The better ones are by authors who write as an attempt to hold a mirror to our society. If they makes us squirm it is only because we find ourselves thinking a long the same lines as those we read about. We may feel discomfort in our ability to identify with one type of intolerance or another. The job of these authors is to make us rethink our views.
Professor Peter Gottschalk, of Wesleyan is not one of these authors. His book American Heretics Catholics Jews Muslims and the history of religious intolerance made me squirm because his idea(s) about who exactly is intolerant is questionable. I cannot for the life of me figure out what his agenda is, other than to be a published author. If I were his professor and he turned in any of these chapters as an essay, I’d question his ability to clearly define his point and ask if he may not in fact be showing signs of intolerance.
In his chapter titled, “Fanatics: Secular fears and Mormon political candidates from Joseph Smith Jr. to Mitt Romney”, Gottschalk offers a far too long view that the Mormon history is fraught with political intolerance; that, due to no fault of their own, Mormons have had a hard time in American politics. Oh yeah, like Smith didn’t invite trouble everywhere he went. While it is true, Romney’s religion was talked about ad nauseam, it did not stop him from being on the Republican ticket. A point Gottschalk concedes: “None of these issues (what it means to be Mormon) played a significant role in the 2012 campaign.” So why did write this chapter Professor? What was your point? It would have made much more sense to have a chapter devoted to the struggles of religious minority candidates and include Kennedy and ever other religious political first. Gottschalk spends so much time on Mormonism and politics readers may wonder if this is an argument for Romney 2016.
My least favorite of his chapters is titled, “It’s not a religion, it’s a cult: The Branch Davidians”. Here Gottschalk does offer some interesting ideas on the word cult and its modern connotation: “The label ‘cults’ suggests that the application of the word says more about those who apply it than those it purportedly describes”. His point is well taken. Too often we label a religion that we do not understand or feel comfortable with as a cult. Gottschalk then goes into the long history of the Branch Davidians and gives a blow by blow account of the disastrous siege of the Davidian compound by the U.S. government in order to convince readers that the government’s intolerance of cults led to the death of innocent people. While I do not disagree the government used unnecessary force, Gottschalk never considers why they did. Gottschalk failed to consider that the government may have had Jones Town and Rajneesh (Antelope Oregon) in mind when they decided to take action.
What bothered me the most was Gottschalk’s link to the disaster of Waco and the Oklahoma bombing. He says, “..the disaster at Waco represents an imperious government’s massacre of those asserting their rights of religious expression and gun ownership”. He then goes on to talk about Timothy McVeigh and how this massacre led him to bomb a government building. It does not occur to Gottschalk to explore the possibility that it is the fanatic who calls himself a Christian, yet demands to be armed to the teeth, that is the problem. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it is Christ who said, “You can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hand”. If I remember right, he said, “love your neighbor, turn the other cheek and the meek shall inherit the earth”. Timothy McVeigh was a very angry young man that was looking for any reason to get back at the government he thought had wronged him. If Waco had not happened something else would have set him off. It would have served Gottschalk better had he noted that religious fanatics and weapons are never a good mix.
Some of Gottschalk’s chapters do offer historical accounts of religious intolerance yet he fails to look deeply at the root causes of these cases. He fails to show his readers the reasons Muslim extremists hate the western culture or how some Christian leaders pushed an ant-Muslim view on their followers after 9/11. This is the heart of the problem with Gottschalk’s book. He blames everything but religion on religious intolerance.
Show Less
LibraryThing member David_Norman
Gottschalk's American Heretics is a well-written overview of the growing pains faced by a nation in search of religious diversity and freedom. Tracing his theme from the Massachusetts witch-hunts, through anti-Catholic sentiments, to post 9/11 Islamophobia (the title of his previous book), the
Gottschalk serves as professor of religion at Wesleyan University, but writes from a more religious historical viewpoint. Rather than casting judgments upon a particular heresy's beliefs, the author is more interested in the religious opposition it faced. Were the colonial Quakers' beliefs justified? The author deftly leads the reader to ignore such a question and ask if their suffering was just. Were the Irish Catholics a violent bunch? The author focuses on the atrocities committed against them, rather than by their hand. Examples abound. The author is strictly concerned with the plight of the downtrodden and outcast.
Ultimately, this work presents a religious historical look at the American story and the situation in which we find ourselves. History attests that there is hope beyond the religious fears that mark our generation. Rather than passively waiting for that day to come, the author encourages his reader to work for that day. His last chapter, "We Can Do Better," presents his vision for the manner in which we must.
Show More
author sets out to demonstrate two underlying truths: "Celebrating the idea of secularism proves far easier than establishing a society based on it," and that there is hope for those who find themselves under current persecution (47).Gottschalk serves as professor of religion at Wesleyan University, but writes from a more religious historical viewpoint. Rather than casting judgments upon a particular heresy's beliefs, the author is more interested in the religious opposition it faced. Were the colonial Quakers' beliefs justified? The author deftly leads the reader to ignore such a question and ask if their suffering was just. Were the Irish Catholics a violent bunch? The author focuses on the atrocities committed against them, rather than by their hand. Examples abound. The author is strictly concerned with the plight of the downtrodden and outcast.
Ultimately, this work presents a religious historical look at the American story and the situation in which we find ourselves. History attests that there is hope beyond the religious fears that mark our generation. Rather than passively waiting for that day to come, the author encourages his reader to work for that day. His last chapter, "We Can Do Better," presents his vision for the manner in which we must.
Show Less
LibraryThing member GaryKbookworm
Mr. Gottshalk has written a book that should be required reading in all high school American History classes. He details our sad history of prejudice and intolerance from the Puritans and their witch trials, Irish Catholics, the Sioux, Jews, and our current Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment
Show More
today. Most of us would be lying if we said we don't have some fear or prejudice towards Muslims after 9/11. We need to start looking at people as individuals and into their hearts instead of their religious preferences. He believes that their is hope if we as a people become better educated about religions different than our own. An eye-opening book, Mr. Gottshalk. Show Less
LibraryThing member jwmccormack
Gottschalk's book is the latest to call into question the degree to which the United States has lived up to its constitutional promise of the free exercise of religion. Readers unfamiliar with America's history of religious intolerance should profit from reading this accessible, lucid presentation,
Show More
and those familiar with works by Martha Nussbaum, Winfred Fallers Sullivan, and David Sehat will likewise find much here to interest them. Gottschalk has chosen his historical episodes wisely, and the book distinguishes itself by linking more recent fears of "cults" and Muslims to earlier anxieties about Quakers, Catholics, and Mormons. One can only hope that the publisher keeps it priced to own so the book finds its way into the hands of the non-academic public. Show Less
LibraryThing member Darcia
American Heretics is a fascinating look at the history of religion and the associated intolerance within the United States. For a nation supposedly founded on freedom of religious choice, our society is remarkably judgmental. This book offers surprising insight into the way our religious snobbery
While not an overly long book, Peter Gottschalk manages to fit in an astounding amount of information. The book is well organized and easy to read. Gottschalk makes no religious or moral claims, nor does he attempt to lecture or preach. He simply provides the mirror reflecting our hypocrisy.
This is one of those books that pertains to everyone, regardless of your religious base (or lack thereof). I highly recommend this book to everyone. And please read with an open mind. You might be surprised at how much of yourself you see within these pages.
Show More
has evolved over the years.While not an overly long book, Peter Gottschalk manages to fit in an astounding amount of information. The book is well organized and easy to read. Gottschalk makes no religious or moral claims, nor does he attempt to lecture or preach. He simply provides the mirror reflecting our hypocrisy.
This is one of those books that pertains to everyone, regardless of your religious base (or lack thereof). I highly recommend this book to everyone. And please read with an open mind. You might be surprised at how much of yourself you see within these pages.
Show Less
LibraryThing member 3wheeledlibrarian
I received this book through the Early Reviewers program.
I am both a religious person and a historian, so I thought this would be an interesting read. This book is a series of short essays, making the case that Americans have a history of religious intolerance. The author addresses the history of
One of my concerns about the book is I don't really feel like it hangs together. It's not really a single narrative, but a bundle of shorter narratives that had been unified by casting each story under the heading of religious intolerance. The strength of the book is that it provides a coherent introduction to each one of these topics. I would recommend it to a student, not for the strength of the whole, but for the chapters, which could serve as a springboard for further research .
I am both a religious person and a historian, so I thought this would be an interesting read. This book is a series of short essays, making the case that Americans have a history of religious intolerance. The author addresses the history of
Show More
Quakers in colonial America. He then moves on to the experience of immigrant Irish Catholics. He connects hose two experiences with the repression of Native Americans, using the case study of the Sioux ghost dance. He addresses anti-Semitism, with the interesting choice of the Ku Klux Klan as a focal point. He then looks at the history of the Mormon Church, and at the Branch Davidians. The penultimate chapter focuses on anti-Muslim extremism. One of my concerns about the book is I don't really feel like it hangs together. It's not really a single narrative, but a bundle of shorter narratives that had been unified by casting each story under the heading of religious intolerance. The strength of the book is that it provides a coherent introduction to each one of these topics. I would recommend it to a student, not for the strength of the whole, but for the chapters, which could serve as a springboard for further research .
Show Less
LibraryThing member book58lover
An absolutely interesting take on the intolerance of one religion toward another in American history. Beginning with the Puritans who came to American to escape persecution and then practiced what they learned against 'non-believers' to the current era when once again religious people discriminated
Show More
against other religions, this book is a chronicle of the violence perpetrated by 'god fearing' people. Give me non-believers every time. Show Less
LibraryThing member Maya47Bob46
We Americans are always proud of the First Amendment to the Constitution, but we aren’t always sure what it says or what it means.
To refresh: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
The problem, as Peter Gottschalk ably explains, is that we really don’t live up to those words. We quibble over what a religion is to start and then what it means to allow others to exercise their beliefs. From the start, the Massachusetts Bay Colony whose founders came to the New World because of religious prosecution, determined that everyone need to worship in the same way and to believe the same things. Roger Williams left to found Rhode Island and Mary Dyer, a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers) was hung.
From those beginnings, we proceeded to discrimination against Catholics, Jews, Mormons, various cults, and, now Muslims. Gottschalk makes a strong case for his belief that religious discrimination is often tied to racial/ethnic discrimination and often arises when a majority feels threatened by difference.
Our founders wanted to be different from England where the head of state – the Queen – is also the head of the Church of England. Gottschalk argues this lead to the desire to found a secular state and to the First Amendment.
I have to say that I found myself cringing at times as Gottschalk recounts how and why we mistreated so many throughout our history. This is a good, relatively short, history of our religious intolerance.
To refresh: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
Show More
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.The problem, as Peter Gottschalk ably explains, is that we really don’t live up to those words. We quibble over what a religion is to start and then what it means to allow others to exercise their beliefs. From the start, the Massachusetts Bay Colony whose founders came to the New World because of religious prosecution, determined that everyone need to worship in the same way and to believe the same things. Roger Williams left to found Rhode Island and Mary Dyer, a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers) was hung.
From those beginnings, we proceeded to discrimination against Catholics, Jews, Mormons, various cults, and, now Muslims. Gottschalk makes a strong case for his belief that religious discrimination is often tied to racial/ethnic discrimination and often arises when a majority feels threatened by difference.
Our founders wanted to be different from England where the head of state – the Queen – is also the head of the Church of England. Gottschalk argues this lead to the desire to found a secular state and to the First Amendment.
I have to say that I found myself cringing at times as Gottschalk recounts how and why we mistreated so many throughout our history. This is a good, relatively short, history of our religious intolerance.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Othemts
I received a free early reviewers copy of this book via the Library Thing Early Reviewers program.
As Americans, we proudly proclaim our religious tolerance and maintain that our country was built on religious freedom. While many forms of religious expression have flourished in the United States,
The book is short for all the topics it covers and Gottschalk really only touches upon these various topics. The author can get oddly deep into some parts of the topics while being very broad at other times. I also found it troubling how much he defends the Branch Davidians as a persecuted minority rather than recognizing that child rape and their vast military arsenal were a threat to the community at large.
It's an interesting overview, and if you have a familiarity with American history there shouldn't be too many surprises. But if you think that religious groups have always been welcomed in the United States, you'll want to read this book.
As Americans, we proudly proclaim our religious tolerance and maintain that our country was built on religious freedom. While many forms of religious expression have flourished in the United States,
Show More
Gottschalk reminds of the many instances of religious intolerance in our country from earliest settlement to the present day. The book is divided into seven chapters focusing on:- Puritan persecution of Quakers in colonial Massachusetts
- The struggles of Irish Catholic immigrants in Protestant-dominated cities in the 19th century
- The Ghost Dance and the extermination of the Sioux
- 20th prejudice against Jews by the Ku Klux Klan, Henry Ford, and immigration restrictions
- The Latter Day Saints struggle against violent opposition in the 19th century and how the political careers of George and Mitt Romney show a growing acceptance.
- The Branch Davidians and the vilifying of outsider groups as cults
- Islamophobia in the wake of the September 11th attacks
The book is short for all the topics it covers and Gottschalk really only touches upon these various topics. The author can get oddly deep into some parts of the topics while being very broad at other times. I also found it troubling how much he defends the Branch Davidians as a persecuted minority rather than recognizing that child rape and their vast military arsenal were a threat to the community at large.
It's an interesting overview, and if you have a familiarity with American history there shouldn't be too many surprises. But if you think that religious groups have always been welcomed in the United States, you'll want to read this book.
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Physical description
256 p.; 6 inches
ISBN
1137278293 / 9781137278296