Podcast appearances and mentions of Jonathan Z Smith

Today we're discussing a book by religion and philosophy professor Jeffrey Kripal (Rice University), called How to Think Impossibly: About Souls, UFOs, Time, Belief, and Everything Else (University of Chicago Press, 2024). He seems to be suggesting…that we should believe…in impossible things. Miracles. Levitation. UFOs. Archetypes. And many other things Leah and Brian were told not to believe in during their time in secular graduate programs, of the type that Kripal himself would seem to teach in. What is happening here? We explore. Join us. “Authentic” was the 2023 Merriam-Webster word of year: https://www.georgefamilyfoundation.org/news/blog-post-title-three-x9s6e-h4jbh#:~:text=Merriam-Webster Leah Payne, award winner, for God Gave Rock and Roll to You: https://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/12/christianity-today-book-awards-2024/? Here is the book on the publisher's website, Jeffrey Kripal's, How to Think Impossibly: About Souls, UFOs, Time, Belief, and Everything Else: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo216049049.html “dual aspect monism” // double-aspect theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory Jeffrey J. Kripal: https://profiles.rice.edu/faculty/jeffrey-j-kripal Jonathan Z. Smith: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Z._Smith Jonathan Z. Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious”: https://womrel.sitehost.iu.edu/Rel433%20Readings/SearchableTextFiles/Smith_ReligionReligionsReligious.pdf Jonathan Z. Smith, “In Comparison a Magic Dwells”: https://classics.osu.edu/sites/classics.osu.edu/files/Magic_Dwells.pdf Russel McCutcheon, Critics Not Caretakers: https://www.routledge.com/Critics-Not-Caretakers-Redescribing-the-Public-Study-of-Religion/McCutcheon/p/book/9781032467924 Mircea Eliade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade The Nietzsche book Brian was trying to remember: The Birth of Tragedy: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51356/51356-h/51356-h.htm Book Leah mentioned, that she taught this past semester: Charles Freeman, Holy Bones, Holy Dust: How Relics Shaped the History of Medieval Europe: https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bones-Dust-History-Medieval/dp/0300184301 Carlos Eire, They Flew: A History of the Impossible: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300280074/they-flew/ The mystery of where socks go in the washer: https://youtube.com/shorts/lh64cnjDsWg?si=P15MsWcO3Op2eC3t The Coach bag Brian is describing, note outer side pocket, and there is an identical one on the other side: https://photos-us.bazaarvoice.com/photo/2/cGhvdG86bWFjeXM/0f759b29-68af-5b3c-85e7-cc3983a4cd24

Sam Gill joins Kristian Petersen to discuss his award-winning 2021 book, The Proper Study of Religion: Building on Jonathan Z. Smith (OUP, 2020).

00:00 Marilyn Monroe's networks pulled her apart, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=141257 10:00 Genres, Objects, and the Contemporary Expression of Higher-Status Tastes, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=141245 17:00 How to live given the certainty of death, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Hu465KL1w 20:00 ‘School athletics at the center of attention devalues intellectual students', https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=141254 26:00 Seven Reasons Cops Are Disliked, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=141252 36:30 Why Be Jewish? (Jonathan Sacks), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA2U3zF_BmY 54:00 Rethinking Jewish Philosophy: Beyond Particularism and Universalism, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=140872 1:22:00 Getting to Know the North American Association for the Study of Religion, https://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/getting-to-know-the-north-american-association-for-the-study-of-religion/ 1:29:00 Resisting History: Historicism and Its Discontents in German-Jewish Thought, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=136098 1:55:00 Reflections on “Thinking with Jonathan Z. Smith”, https://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/reflections-on-thinking-with-jonathan-z-smith/ 1:57:00 Religious scholar of Jonathan Z. Smith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Z._Smith 1:58:00 Jonathan Z. Smith, Now You See it Now You Won't': The Study of Religion Over the Next Forty Years, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfuypty7LGw 2:42:45 Tucker Carlson on Big Tech censorship Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

Aaron Hughes, the keynote speaker for the #JZSatNTNU Conference in Trondheim, Norway, talks with the RSP about the legacy of Jonathan Z. Smith's work for the field of religious studies.

In this episode, students and colleagues of Jonathan Z. Smith remember his life and work. Smith passed away on December 30, 2017. A transcript of this show is available at: religion.ua.edu/about-us/podcasts/ Study Religion is a production of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Alabama.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Taking Jonathan Z. Smith’s much quoted line seriously: “there is nothing that must be taught, there is nothing that cannot be left out,” this workshop with Russell McCutcheon (University of Alabama) focuses on the choices an instructor makes in designing and teaching an introductory course in the academic study of religion. Because such courses serve broad curricular needs (often comprising a General Education or Core Curriculum credit) while also recruiting majors for Departments of Religious Studies, the students taking such course, and their interest in/prior exposure to the material, can vary widely. So the choices the instructor makes—what to include and what to leave out—must take into account such a variety of concerns as to sometimes make designing and teaching such courses surprisingly difficult. This workshop provides an opportunity to think more widely about the intellectual tools that can be used in such courses, so long as the instructor can clearly distinguish a delimited set of skills (e.g., description, interpretation, comparison, explanation) from the innumerable human situations where their scholarly use can be exemplified. For if Smith is correct that the liberal arts and/or the Humanities are concerned with “developing the students’ capacities for reading, writing, and speaking—put another way, for interpreting and arguing,” then teaching skills, used in precise situations, to make sense of human doings, likely ought to be the aim of such courses. The workshop presumes that attendees have read Smith’s essay, “The Introductory Course: Less is Better” (available here). Please also review Prof. McCutcheon's latest introductory syllabus, and read as much as you are able of Prof. McCutcheon’s concise book Studying Religion: An Introduction, this being an example of one way to approach the challenge of an introductory course that is about more than memorizing names and dates. Russell McCutcheon is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Alabama; his interests have long revolved around the practical implications of classification systems. He has written or edited a variety of books in the study of religion, often focused on methodology and theory, and frequently blogs at his Department’s site or at the blog for Culture on the Edge, a research collaborative of which he is a member. The Craft of Teaching (CoT) is the Divinity School's program of pedagogical development for its graduate students, dedicated to preparing a new generation of accomplished educators in the field of religious studies. We bring together Divinity School faculty, current students, and an extensive alumni network of decorated teachers to share our craft and to advance critical reflection on religious studies pedagogy.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Taking Jonathan Z. Smith’s much quoted line seriously: “there is nothing that must be taught, there is nothing that cannot be left out,” this workshop with Russell McCutcheon (University of Alabama) focuses on the choices an instructor makes in designing and teaching an introductory course in the academic study of religion. Because such courses serve broad curricular needs (often comprising a General Education or Core Curriculum credit) while also recruiting majors for Departments of Religious Studies, the students taking such course, and their interest in/prior exposure to the material, can vary widely. So the choices the instructor makes—what to include and what to leave out—must take into account such a variety of concerns as to sometimes make designing and teaching such courses surprisingly difficult. This workshop provides an opportunity to think more widely about the intellectual tools that can be used in such courses, so long as the instructor can clearly distinguish a delimited set of skills (e.g., description, interpretation, comparison, explanation) from the innumerable human situations where their scholarly use can be exemplified. For if Smith is correct that the liberal arts and/or the Humanities are concerned with “developing the students’ capacities for reading, writing, and speaking—put another way, for interpreting and arguing,” then teaching skills, used in precise situations, to make sense of human doings, likely ought to be the aim of such courses. The workshop presumes that attendees have read Smith’s essay, “The Introductory Course: Less is Better” (available here). Please also review Prof. McCutcheon's latest introductory syllabus, and read as much as you are able of Prof. McCutcheon’s concise book Studying Religion: An Introduction, this being an example of one way to approach the challenge of an introductory course that is about more than memorizing names and dates. Russell McCutcheon is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Alabama; his interests have long revolved around the practical implications of classification systems. He has written or edited a variety of books in the study of religion, often focused on methodology and theory, and frequently blogs at his Department’s site or at the blog for Culture on the Edge, a research collaborative of which he is a member. The Craft of Teaching (CoT) is the Divinity School's program of pedagogical development for its graduate students, dedicated to preparing a new generation of accomplished educators in the field of religious studies. We bring together Divinity School faculty, current students, and an extensive alumni network of decorated teachers to share our craft and to advance critical reflection on religious studies pedagogy.

When did religion begin in South Asia? Many would argue that it was not until the colonial encounter that South Asians began to understand themselves as religious. In Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India (Oxford University Press, 2012), Peter Gottschalk, Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University, outlines the contingent and mutual coalescence of science and religion as they were cultivated within the structures of empire. He demonstrates how the categories of Hindu and Muslim were constructed and applied to the residents of the Chainpur nexus of villages by the British despite the fact that these identities were not always how South Asians described themselves. Throughout this study we are made aware of the consequences of comparison and classification in the study of religion. Gottschalk engages Jonathan Z. Smith’s modes of comparison demonstrating that seemingly neutral categories serve ideological purposes and forms of knowledge are not arbitrary in order. Here, we observe this work through imperial forms of knowledge production in South Asia, including the roles of cartographers, statisticians, artists, ethnographers, and photographers. In the end we witness the social consequences of British scientism and its effects on the construction of the category of religion in South Asia. In our conversation we discuss mapmaking, travel writing, Christian theology, the authority of positioning, the census, folklore studies, ethnographies, royal societies, museums, indigenous identifications, and theories for the study of religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When did religion begin in South Asia? Many would argue that it was not until the colonial encounter that South Asians began to understand themselves as religious. In Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India (Oxford University Press, 2012), Peter Gottschalk, Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University, outlines the contingent and mutual coalescence of science and religion as they were cultivated within the structures of empire. He demonstrates how the categories of Hindu and Muslim were constructed and applied to the residents of the Chainpur nexus of villages by the British despite the fact that these identities were not always how South Asians described themselves. Throughout this study we are made aware of the consequences of comparison and classification in the study of religion. Gottschalk engages Jonathan Z. Smith's modes of comparison demonstrating that seemingly neutral categories serve ideological purposes and forms of knowledge are not arbitrary in order. Here, we observe this work through imperial forms of knowledge production in South Asia, including the roles of cartographers, statisticians, artists, ethnographers, and photographers. In the end we witness the social consequences of British scientism and its effects on the construction of the category of religion in South Asia. In our conversation we discuss mapmaking, travel writing, Christian theology, the authority of positioning, the census, folklore studies, ethnographies, royal societies, museums, indigenous identifications, and theories for the study of religion.

When did religion begin in South Asia? Many would argue that it was not until the colonial encounter that South Asians began to understand themselves as religious. In Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India (Oxford University Press, 2012), Peter Gottschalk, Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University, outlines the contingent and mutual coalescence of science and religion as they were cultivated within the structures of empire. He demonstrates how the categories of Hindu and Muslim were constructed and applied to the residents of the Chainpur nexus of villages by the British despite the fact that these identities were not always how South Asians described themselves. Throughout this study we are made aware of the consequences of comparison and classification in the study of religion. Gottschalk engages Jonathan Z. Smith’s modes of comparison demonstrating that seemingly neutral categories serve ideological purposes and forms of knowledge are not arbitrary in order. Here, we observe this work through imperial forms of knowledge production in South Asia, including the roles of cartographers, statisticians, artists, ethnographers, and photographers. In the end we witness the social consequences of British scientism and its effects on the construction of the category of religion in South Asia. In our conversation we discuss mapmaking, travel writing, Christian theology, the authority of positioning, the census, folklore studies, ethnographies, royal societies, museums, indigenous identifications, and theories for the study of religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When did religion begin in South Asia? Many would argue that it was not until the colonial encounter that South Asians began to understand themselves as religious. In Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India (Oxford University Press, 2012), Peter Gottschalk, Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University, outlines the contingent and mutual coalescence of science and religion as they were cultivated within the structures of empire. He demonstrates how the categories of Hindu and Muslim were constructed and applied to the residents of the Chainpur nexus of villages by the British despite the fact that these identities were not always how South Asians described themselves. Throughout this study we are made aware of the consequences of comparison and classification in the study of religion. Gottschalk engages Jonathan Z. Smith’s modes of comparison demonstrating that seemingly neutral categories serve ideological purposes and forms of knowledge are not arbitrary in order. Here, we observe this work through imperial forms of knowledge production in South Asia, including the roles of cartographers, statisticians, artists, ethnographers, and photographers. In the end we witness the social consequences of British scientism and its effects on the construction of the category of religion in South Asia. In our conversation we discuss mapmaking, travel writing, Christian theology, the authority of positioning, the census, folklore studies, ethnographies, royal societies, museums, indigenous identifications, and theories for the study of religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When did religion begin in South Asia? Many would argue that it was not until the colonial encounter that South Asians began to understand themselves as religious. In Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India (Oxford University Press, 2012), Peter Gottschalk, Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University, outlines the contingent and mutual coalescence of science and religion as they were cultivated within the structures of empire. He demonstrates how the categories of Hindu and Muslim were constructed and applied to the residents of the Chainpur nexus of villages by the British despite the fact that these identities were not always how South Asians described themselves. Throughout this study we are made aware of the consequences of comparison and classification in the study of religion. Gottschalk engages Jonathan Z. Smith’s modes of comparison demonstrating that seemingly neutral categories serve ideological purposes and forms of knowledge are not arbitrary in order. Here, we observe this work through imperial forms of knowledge production in South Asia, including the roles of cartographers, statisticians, artists, ethnographers, and photographers. In the end we witness the social consequences of British scientism and its effects on the construction of the category of religion in South Asia. In our conversation we discuss mapmaking, travel writing, Christian theology, the authority of positioning, the census, folklore studies, ethnographies, royal societies, museums, indigenous identifications, and theories for the study of religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When did religion begin in South Asia? Many would argue that it was not until the colonial encounter that South Asians began to understand themselves as religious. In Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India (Oxford University Press, 2012), Peter Gottschalk, Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University, outlines the contingent and mutual coalescence of science and religion as they were cultivated within the structures of empire. He demonstrates how the categories of Hindu and Muslim were constructed and applied to the residents of the Chainpur nexus of villages by the British despite the fact that these identities were not always how South Asians described themselves. Throughout this study we are made aware of the consequences of comparison and classification in the study of religion. Gottschalk engages Jonathan Z. Smith’s modes of comparison demonstrating that seemingly neutral categories serve ideological purposes and forms of knowledge are not arbitrary in order. Here, we observe this work through imperial forms of knowledge production in South Asia, including the roles of cartographers, statisticians, artists, ethnographers, and photographers. In the end we witness the social consequences of British scientism and its effects on the construction of the category of religion in South Asia. In our conversation we discuss mapmaking, travel writing, Christian theology, the authority of positioning, the census, folklore studies, ethnographies, royal societies, museums, indigenous identifications, and theories for the study of religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When did religion begin in South Asia? Many would argue that it was not until the colonial encounter that South Asians began to understand themselves as religious. In Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India (Oxford University Press, 2012), Peter Gottschalk, Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University, outlines the contingent and mutual coalescence of science and religion as they were cultivated within the structures of empire. He demonstrates how the categories of Hindu and Muslim were constructed and applied to the residents of the Chainpur nexus of villages by the British despite the fact that these identities were not always how South Asians described themselves. Throughout this study we are made aware of the consequences of comparison and classification in the study of religion. Gottschalk engages Jonathan Z. Smith’s modes of comparison demonstrating that seemingly neutral categories serve ideological purposes and forms of knowledge are not arbitrary in order. Here, we observe this work through imperial forms of knowledge production in South Asia, including the roles of cartographers, statisticians, artists, ethnographers, and photographers. In the end we witness the social consequences of British scientism and its effects on the construction of the category of religion in South Asia. In our conversation we discuss mapmaking, travel writing, Christian theology, the authority of positioning, the census, folklore studies, ethnographies, royal societies, museums, indigenous identifications, and theories for the study of religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Led by Jonathan Z. Smith, the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor in the Humanities and Associate Faculty in the University of Chicago Divinity School, and author of the forthcoming collection of essays “On Teaching Religion: Essays by Jonathan Z. Smith” (ed. Christopher Lehrich: Oxford UP). Smith discusses his pedagogy in relation to a course he has taught at the University.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Led by Jonathan Z. Smith, the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor in the Humanities and Associate Faculty in the University of Chicago Divinity School, and author of the forthcoming collection of essays “On Teaching Religion: Essays by Jonathan Z. Smith” (ed. Christopher Lehrich: Oxford UP). Smith discusses his pedagogy in relation to a course he has taught at the University.

What is religion? Who gets to define it? Why is defining something a religion such an important endeavor? What exactly is at stake in determining the status of religion? Like many people think, you may say “Religion is self evident – you just know it when you see it.” But the process of defining the boundaries of religion have real economic, social, and political consequences. Hugh Urban, professor of Comparative Studies at Ohio State University, explores these questions in his book The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion (Princeton University Press, 2011). As a historian of religion, trained at the University of Chicago, the categories that define our discipline were of great interest to Urban. Years ago when his teacher, Jonathan Z. Smith, famously explained, “Religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study,” Urban wondered if this is really true. In this case study, he explores the complex story of how Scientology described itself and eventually become recognized as a “religion” in the United States. As a specialist in secrecy in religion, Scientology offered a dynamic example where secrecy played several roles in shaping the tradition, including insider esoteric religious perspectives but also through the anxieties of Americans throughout the Cold War period. In our conversation we discuss the American spiritual marketplace, the science behind Dianetics, the development of the Church of Scientology, the term cult, challenges of the Internet for religious secrecy, how to approach problematic religious groups, New Religious Movements, and Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film, “The Master.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is religion? Who gets to define it? Why is defining something a religion such an important endeavor? What exactly is at stake in determining the status of religion? Like many people think, you may say “Religion is self evident – you just know it when you see it.” But the process of defining the boundaries of religion have real economic, social, and political consequences. Hugh Urban, professor of Comparative Studies at Ohio State University, explores these questions in his book The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion (Princeton University Press, 2011). As a historian of religion, trained at the University of Chicago, the categories that define our discipline were of great interest to Urban. Years ago when his teacher, Jonathan Z. Smith, famously explained, “Religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study,” Urban wondered if this is really true. In this case study, he explores the complex story of how Scientology described itself and eventually become recognized as a “religion” in the United States. As a specialist in secrecy in religion, Scientology offered a dynamic example where secrecy played several roles in shaping the tradition, including insider esoteric religious perspectives but also through the anxieties of Americans throughout the Cold War period. In our conversation we discuss the American spiritual marketplace, the science behind Dianetics, the development of the Church of Scientology, the term cult, challenges of the Internet for religious secrecy, how to approach problematic religious groups, New Religious Movements, and Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film, “The Master.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is religion? Who gets to define it? Why is defining something a religion such an important endeavor? What exactly is at stake in determining the status of religion? Like many people think, you may say “Religion is self evident – you just know it when you see it.” But the process of defining the boundaries of religion have real economic, social, and political consequences. Hugh Urban, professor of Comparative Studies at Ohio State University, explores these questions in his book The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion (Princeton University Press, 2011). As a historian of religion, trained at the University of Chicago, the categories that define our discipline were of great interest to Urban. Years ago when his teacher, Jonathan Z. Smith, famously explained, “Religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study,” Urban wondered if this is really true. In this case study, he explores the complex story of how Scientology described itself and eventually become recognized as a “religion” in the United States. As a specialist in secrecy in religion, Scientology offered a dynamic example where secrecy played several roles in shaping the tradition, including insider esoteric religious perspectives but also through the anxieties of Americans throughout the Cold War period. In our conversation we discuss the American spiritual marketplace, the science behind Dianetics, the development of the Church of Scientology, the term cult, challenges of the Internet for religious secrecy, how to approach problematic religious groups, New Religious Movements, and Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film, “The Master.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is religion? Who gets to define it? Why is defining something a religion such an important endeavor? What exactly is at stake in determining the status of religion? Like many people think, you may say “Religion is self evident – you just know it when you see it.” But the process of defining the boundaries of religion have real economic, social, and political consequences. Hugh Urban, professor of Comparative Studies at Ohio State University, explores these questions in his book The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion (Princeton University Press, 2011). As a historian of religion, trained at the University of Chicago, the categories that define our discipline were of great interest to Urban. Years ago when his teacher, Jonathan Z. Smith, famously explained, “Religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study,” Urban wondered if this is really true. In this case study, he explores the complex story of how Scientology described itself and eventually become recognized as a “religion” in the United States. As a specialist in secrecy in religion, Scientology offered a dynamic example where secrecy played several roles in shaping the tradition, including insider esoteric religious perspectives but also through the anxieties of Americans throughout the Cold War period. In our conversation we discuss the American spiritual marketplace, the science behind Dianetics, the development of the Church of Scientology, the term cult, challenges of the Internet for religious secrecy, how to approach problematic religious groups, New Religious Movements, and Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film, “The Master.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jonathan Z. Smith explores aspects of religion in civic discourse in terms of the constitution and the court, through representation and interpretation of religion in public speech. Series: "Humanitas" [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 7910]

Jonathan Z. Smith explores aspects of religion in civic discourse in terms of the constitution and the court, through representation and interpretation of religion in public speech. Series: "Humanitas" [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 7910]

Jonathan Z. Smith explores aspects of religion in civic discourse in terms of the constitution and the court, through representation and interpretation of religion in public speech. Series: "Humanitas" [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 7910]