newly arrived from Ireland, Germany,nItaly, and Poland. Just as Catholics sawnthe Protestant content of public educationnin the 19th century as a threat tontheir religion, the authors of Disestablishmentna Second Time see the secularncontent of public education in the 20thncentury as a threat to all religions. Indeed,nthey claim that the values implicitnin American public education constitutena religion in themselves, a civil religionnwhich some sociologists havencalled “Americanism.”nThis accusation raises some interestingnpoints. If the authors are correct, thenconflict is not between two branches ofntraditional religion, but between traditionalnreligion and a new form of religion,none derived not from transcendentalnsources or from tradition, but fromnthe practice of our civil lives. Thenauthors call this new religion “republicanism,”nand find its roots in thenthought and writings of Thomas Jefferson.nHowever, this conflict has evennmore ancient roots, for in The City ofnGod St. Augustine portrayed just such anrivalry in fifth-century Rome betweennthe Christian Church and the civil religionnof the Romans. A civil religion—nwhether of Americanism or Romanismn—is a kind of natural religion based onnthe desire of human beings to stand innawe of something and to pursue a visionnof order and of peace. The state, especiallyna large and beneficent one, may fulfillnthe need for an object of worship, sonin effect a civil religion is a simple outgrovW:hnof patriotism. At its extreme,nhowever, the growth can develop un­nIn the Mailnseemly proportions, until the systematicnelevation of civil ideals replaces religiousnideals. The coming of Christianity didnaway with the need for civil religions asnit provided one religion for all mankind,nits catholicity made possible by its transcendentnnature, i.e., one religion givennfrom above by God rather than manynreligions arising from below in separatenstates. Now, however, with the declinenof Christianity, particularly Protestantism,nas the unoflScial religion of America,ncivil religion has reasserted itself.nThe authors’ argument is that publicneducation is really a form of religiousneducation, that public support of it viantax levies gives it an unfair advantage,nand that therefore the public schoolsnought to be “disestablished.” But what isnthe practical effect of this? Advocates ofnpublic education are correct in sayingnthat public education performs a servicenby inculcating the values of an Americannconsensus, and has in this way maden”Americans” out of the children of immigrants,nwhether from Russia and Irelandnin the last century, or Mexico and Cubanin this one. Public education rests on thennotion of an American consensus, thatnis, on a set of beliefe common to allnAmericans, no matter what their race,ncountry of origin, or religion. Epluribusnunum, “fi-om many come one,” is probablynthe most accurate of the variousnmottoes used to characterize the Americannway of life, for, from a diversity ofnpeoples, races, and religions unknownnin any other nation in history, we havenbeen able to feshion a single nation basednon a set of common ideas and devotednPublic Employees, Unions, andtheErosionof Civic Trust: AStudy of San Francisco innIhe 1970s by Randolph H. Boehm and Dan C. Heldman; University Publications ofnAmerica; Frederick, MD. San Francisco provides many antimodels (i.e., things which shouldnnot be emulated). This study of the ascendancy of union power in the public sector of that city detailsnanothernChristian Mysticism: A Psychotheology by William McNamara; Franciscan Herald Press;nChicago, n,. The attempt here is to clearly and simply define Christian mystical experiences.nWe’re having trouble with the following: “The Our Father is ‘the prayer of the heart’ par excellence.nThis may impress you more profoundly if you meditate on it backwards.” Backwards?nnnto a common cause of diversity and freedom.nWe should not be too ready to relinquishnan institution that promotesnsuch a goal.nWhat then is the effect of disestablishingnthe public schools? The authorsnfeice this question squarely by analyzingnseveral European states, including Holland,nwhich are “consociational,” that isnwhich support religious as well as publicnschools in an undifferentiated manner.nIn effect, Holland has given up itsncivil consensus considered as a formalnset of ideas. But Holland’s national identitynis afready set, and its history isndevoid of the mass immigration thenUnited States has experienced. Is America’snnational identity as firm and clear asnHolland’s? The authors apparently thinknso, but I do not agree, not when bilingualismnis a hot topic of current debate.nThe United States could end up not likenHolland, where everybody speaks thensame language, but like Belgium ornCanada, where linguistic separationnremains and where cultural separationnhas hurt the peace and progress of thennation. The best solution would be tonshift the consensus away from its currentnsecular, hence inevitably frreligiousnemphasis, and back to the more traditionalnnotion of one nation “under God.”nSuch a change would explicitly acknowledgenthe religious tradition of the Americannpeople, something which is currentlynnot done in public schools andnwhich could be done without promotingnone religion over another, that is,nwithout violating the Ffrst Amendment.nAside from the thorny issue of consensusnversus religious diversity, thensubstance of Disestablishment a SecondnTime and High School Achievementnserves to make one point especiallynclear—that private education is beingndetiied its fair share of public monies.nThe denial of public aid on the basis ofnthe separation of Church and State is ancop-out. It protects the public wealnfrom only one thing: diversity, fronicallynthe one element that most characterizesnthe American ideal. Dni^iiilOnMay 1983n