Prothero places the recent U.S. culture wars about gay marriage and abortion in a historical context of past American culture wars. He is careful to qualify his analysis to admit that there are many other factors involved in this events beyond religion and morality, but his does show an ongoing conservative vs. progressive cultural conflict going back to colonial times. His thesis is that while conservatives often win short term victories, in the long term the progressive agenda always comes out on top.

Prothero first looks at the 1800 election of Thomas Jefferson. Because of Jefferson's reluctance to publicly discuss his religious beliefs many religious leaders took advantage of his silence to denounce Jefferson as a closet atheist or even a "Mohammedan." He goes on to look at the anti-Catholicism movement that started in the 1830's and the anti-Mormonism movement of the 1850's. Catholics are so throughly integrated into American society today that it is hard to believe there was a time when they were treated with the same hostility as Communists were in the 20th century. Anti-Catholicism was as much anti-immigrant as it was a religious movement, but it and anti-Mormonism reflect the conservative tendency to fear change and fight against a loss of cultural dominance. Finally he looks at the Prohibition movement that successfully outlawed the sale of alcohol in the U.S. from 1920 - 1933. This may have been the last time that a morals crusade grew into a big enough national movement to impose its will on the general public.

It is hard to argue with Prothero's thesis that progressives tend to prevail in the long term. He could have expanded the argument to include Abolition, labor movements, the Civil Rights movement, and women's rights as well, but while those were long term progressive victories the conservative opposition was less focused on morality, so they would be a bit beyond the scope of Prothero's argument.

In this book Kevin Roose charts his journey as a transfer student at Liberty University (“Bible Boot Camp” according to Liberty’s founder Reverend Jerry Falwell).

Roose is from a quintessential liberal family. His parents are Quakers and the family’s church activity was limited. He has two lesbian aunts. He attends Brown University before he decides to transfer.

When I was in college, studying abroad was heavily encouraged. While Roose doesn’t exactly travel across the pond, I am sure some liberals believe going to Liberty is about as foreign as a semester in Greece. I laughed at how “worried” his family was that he might return home a proselytizing Christian.

This isn’t a book mocking evangelicals. Roose tries to observe and report about the religious divide that keeps increasing in America – and how much influence a school like Liberty can garner. But even if most of the students at Liberty are pre-tea party, how different can two 19 year old teenagers really be?  This is what Roose hopes to find out by the end of his trial.

During his Liberty odyssey he takes creationist courses, meets a gay conversion pastor, evangelizes at Daytona Beach (“Satan’s turf”), and during a service watches as an entire arena of students wave their hands in the air and drop to their knees in fervor.

He also meets some rebellious kids, a skeptical class president, out and proud feminists, and some hall mates who just want to get laid. He even goes on a few dates.

Kevin Roose was 19 years old when he wrote this book. He is erudite but also funny; not only is his book well written but very current. He is also naturally empathetic so the book never feels condescending. Instead of judging he wants to know why. It is easy to see why journalist A.J. Jacobs was his mentor.

And this is where a tiny, tiny complaint comes in.

Sometimes I found passages too neutral. It is like he skirts around some issues too softly, avoiding any real blast of opinion. Sometimes I wish he could have SCREAMED across the page how he actually felt about some of his ignorant classmates or the young-earth creationist courses. This could have been an editorial issue, too, so I am not giving it much clout. But the thing to remember is:

Kevin Roose can write. Beautifully. I am not going to lie about the small stabs of envy I occasionally felt while reading this.

The first this that I noticed when looking a some of the reviews of this book was that Morgan Spurlock is considere a 'poor man's Michael Moore'. I am going to have to disagree with that statement. Michael Moore has become little more than an entertainer, and while Spurlock is much the same, I afind Spurlock to be somewhat more intelligent and enlightened than Michael Moore ever was. Okay, that is an opinion and it appears that there is more of a focus on Moore than there is on Spurlock, but it is clear that Spurlock tends to approach his subjects in a different, and less confrontational way. I will deal with his documentary on fast food in his other book 'Don't Eat this Book', but I believe the difference between Moore and Spurlock also comes out in this book as well.

Michael Moore tends to be very confrontational, and in a way, comes to a conclusion with little to no research, and then gets into people's faces and demands an answer. No wonder people generally can't stand the guy. However, Spurlock seems to actually go out and research his topics, and in a way, his books and his films seem to be more about his research into a subject then simply pushing a specific viewpoint. This book is a case in point. Here, Spurlock goes out into the world to try to find out why people hate American so much, and it is more an attempt to get beside them to talk to them rather than getting in their face, as Michael Moore does. If Moore were to approach the same people that Spurlock approaches in this book I am sure that Moore would have landed up in an awful lot of trouble.

The question has been raised as to whether this book is now obsolete now that Osama bin Laden is dead, but I would probably say that it is not. The question that this book tries to answer is not so much where is Osama bin Laden, but rather who he is and what he represents. As for his death, I must suggest that I am still a little dubious about it, namely because I still suspect that he has been dead for a lot longer than we actually believe he has been, and further, all we really know is that a mansion in Pakistan was raided, somebody was killed, no photos or videos were taken, and a corpse was dumped in the Indian Ocean. In a way, it is not so much the death of a man, but rather the death of a icon, and even then while the icon may be dead, the idea is not.

Spurlock travels to some of the most dangerous places in the world in his quest, and one of the things he must do is to go to a training school where journalists learn how to survive in a war zone. When I read this I was quite intrigued because at the time I knew a number of people joining the missionary movement and I discovered that none of these missionary schools taught them survival skills. I must say I am quite critical on that, but this is not the time or the place to discuss this, namely because I would rather try to explore the ideas that are coming out of this book.

Now, I read the book before I even knew of the existence of the documentary, however like most books that are written along with a documentary, this book does tend to go into a lot more detail. Granted, documentaries tend to be more visual and you can watch them in about 2 hours where as books tend to take longer to read, but in a way I do find myself gravitating towards books much more than I do towards documentaries, however documentaries are still good because you are able to watch them with friends and then discuss the implications afterwards: of course as long as ypur friends are willing to think and to discuss as opposed to simply forcing their views down your throat.

Now this book has turned out to be more of an exploration of the Muslim world from the eyes of an American who wants to understand what is going on in this world. However, he does not simply stick with Muslin countries, but he also travels to western countries where Muslims have settled into communities. This is no more obvious than in Paris where there are parts of the city that are pretty much Muslim neighbourhoods. It is interesting though that these neighbourhoods tend to be on the city fringes and very poor. It is not actually something we generally see here in Australia, because my understanding of the Muslim culture in Australia is that they are not necessarily poor. I would hardly say that they are integrated, they are not, but they have established themselves. For instance, here in Adelaide there was a Palistinian named Shahin, who came out here without a cent to his name, and ended up building a convenience store empire.

Now, I must admit that integration is something that is not easy within our countries, and one of the reasons is that our thought processes and our cultures are vastly different, and I will not speak of the Christian/Muslim divide, even though that divide is ripe for conflict. However, that divide really only exists within the fundamentalist elements, and I must say that amongst a lot of evangelical and fundamentalist Christian communities, there does seem to be little tolerance towards Muslims, but it is not so much directly only at Muslims, but rather at anybody who does not hold the same beliefs as them.

I can't say I know many Muslims myself, but I do know some, and one in particular I do have a good relationship. In fact we have spent a lot of time talking about Islam and Christianity. However, we must remember that our culture is a very liberal culture, and this is something that is not the case in many conservative Muslim countries. This is something that Spurlock had to learn and to respond to appropriately, and from what I understood, he did this quite well. He is not a Muslim, and he did not become a Muslim after his adventure, but he did come out with a much better understanding of the Muslim culture. However, our culture is different, for instance we have a tolerance for pornography, and we do not dress conservatively. We also indulge in alcohol, and this is something that is forbidden to Muslims. However, we need to remember that this is our culture, and people coming into our culture must learn to accept this part of our culture, just as we need to respect another person's culture when we travel there.

Okay, Christians tend not to be tolerant of our culture, and I must suggest that I am a bit critical of that. While I do not suggest that Christians throw away their biblically based morality, I do recommend that they do show a little more tolerance towards those who do not hold the same views as them. This can be difficult however, because in many cases it means that we cannot associate with others in certain contexts (such as going to a strip club). However, I would also not suggest that they lock themselves away in their own little communities, only going out occasionally to fish for prospective participants. I have noticed a lot of hesitation to do such things, and even then, the only time they do so is on 'official business'. I hear all of this talk about evangelism, however I hear no talk about actually making friends beyond that. To be honest, to be a friend with somebody simply to tell them about Christianity, and to discard that friendship when it becomes clear that this person does not want to become a Christian, is first of all not friendly and, I would also suggest, not Christian either.

Now, the conclusion of this book is that Bin Laden is not so much a person but an idea. It is an idea that Muslims should be proud of their heritage and of who they are, and not let another culture move in and destroy that. In the same way he is like Martin Luther King, who became not so much a person, but an idea that all people are equal and should be treated as such. In the same way Christ, while a person, is also an idea (I will be slammed for that statement), and is not so much an idea that people should be nice to each other, but an idea that through his death and resurrection, we have been forgiven of our sins and transgressions, and can come back to God to be in relationship with him.

There was a time when I had started working and actually earning double what I was earning on the dole (whether one can actually consider the dole as a form or earning money since in reality it is a charitable handout) when I started buying any book that I saw that was anti-American: this book was one of them. However, over time I have become less anti-American than I previously was in that it is more that it is not American in and of itself that is the problem, but rather elements of Western Society. Now don't get me wrong, there are a lot of aspects to America that I do not like and do not agree with but that does not necessarily mean that we should hate America - on the other hand, it does not mean that we should simply sit back and do nothing.

Now, this book I think is quite wrong. Yes, the United States has arisen to take the mantle of world superpower, but that does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing. One should consider what Nial Fergusson said in his book Empire - at the end of World War II there were four powers that could have taken the title of world superpower: Russia, Germany, Japan, and the United States (Britain had come to the end of her tenure by that time). Out of those four, I am sure we would all through our weight behind America as being the more responsible power.

That is true, and I remain of that position, however that does not necessarily mean that the United States will not, or has not, changed, and we can see that it has. The concern is not the outward appearances, but the inner beliefs. While a bulk of the world opposed the wars of George W Bush, as it turns out there was quite a lot of support within the United States. While the world actually likes Obama, inside the United States there was been a turn against him. This is what concerns me as it does not seem that the people inside the United States have any concept of the world outside.

This is the premise of this book, and it works on the idea that the exporting of American Imperialism is destroying the wonderful and varied cultures that our world has produced. However this is not the first time it has happened. It happened in the Ancient World all too often, and while I will point at Rome as the prime example, we cannot ignore Babylon, Persia, and even Greece under Alexander. As for more modern examples we cannot go past the British Empire that uprooted whole societies to plant their own colonies (and Australia and South Africa is an example of this, not to ignore the American continent).

As for cinema being the machine of empire, well the truth is that Hollywood is not the only producer of movies. Go for a wonder through the Paris Metro and count the number of posters on the wall that advertise a Hollywood Movie. Can't find any? Well, neither could I. The French are well known for having an independent cinema culture, and to be honest, most French probably aren't interested in American films because they know that theirs are a lot better. Same with Hong Kong, go for a wonder through the MTR and you will see posters advertising Hong Kong films (along with American Films). Second point to make is language. People still speak their own language. If there is one country where it appears that the language is in danger of becoming extinct it is Germany, but as it turns out, it is not. Despite all Germans being taught English up to year 10, they all still speak German, and when people spoke to me in Germany, it was in German. It was only after I indicated that I have difficulties understanding German that they would switch to English.

Is it the end of the American Empire? Probably not just yet, but we are entering a period where the US is in decline, and Asia is in ascension, but parity shifts do take years. Ask the average European in 1910 if it was the end of the British Empire and they would have laughed, however even then the UK was in decline (but did not vanish until the Suez Incident). Despite all this, I believe that it is better that a democracy (even if access to power in this democracy is limited) take the reigns of world leader than some tyrannical dictatorship. Anyway, I also suspect that China is rapidly facing some serious problems, and if we see a collapse in their economy in the next few years (which is quite likely) then it will simply be further evidence that the American Empire still has life left in it.