In theory, most people would accept each of these two descriptions as gross caricature; in practice, especially during the heat of political competition, these kinds of charges and counter-charges are everywhere, especially in the blogosphere where nuanced and balanced argument is not the norm.

Sixteen religious scholars, historians, philosophers, activists, public policy experts, many of whom work in several of those arenas, have combined to produce a new work that maps out the new terrain for how religion works best for both its religious and secular citizens. The book is called Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy and it is a product of the Center for American Progress.

In a section on “Policymaker Response,” one of the contributors is John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress. Many conservatives find it surprising, these authors observe, that a progressive think tank from its beginnings would have embraced religious thinkers as part of the mix in forging a progressive agenda. They argue, “Whether stated or not, public policies are shaped by basic beliefs about the nature of the world and our place in it.” These “basic beliefs” may be humanist or Muslim, avowed secularist or orthodox Jewish, Buddhist or Catholic, but they are a fundamental part of how we accomplish the American democratic project especially in regard to values.

The divide is not entirely bridged in this volume. Real differences emerge from among this very diverse group of people. But one advance, at least, is that the divide itself is differently described than the caricature above and there are suggestions for how less heat and more light can be generated in our public discourse. Call it a proposal for a ceasefire across the religious/secular divide.

The central debate among the participants in this book is whether all who enter the public square, religious or not, need to “translate” their individual sectarian beliefs into a common, public discourse, or whether religious folks can helpfully bring their religious particularity to public policy debate.

David Hollinger, a Professor of American History at UC Berkley and one of the lead essayists, makes the argument that democracy is best served by civic participants translating religious particularity into a common morality and a common civic discourse. Hollinger goes further and also argues that religious folks need to subordinate their individual religious beliefs to a commitment to a shared national ethos.

The other lead essayist, Dr. Eboo Patel, a Muslim scholar, "On Faith" blogger and founder of the Interfaith Youth Core, argues that Hollinger’s approach is not true to democratic principles and leaves out of the public square all the good that religion can bring to our search for the common good. He explains, “it is fundamentally illiberal to exclude religious voices from the public square—requiring that before people can participate, they must ‘cleanse themselves’ of religious particularity.”

The participants largely agree we are living in a different religious time in the United States. For most of its history, the U.S. has been either literally Protestant or functionally Protestant (i.e. other religions had to learn to behave like Protestants to get along). Perhaps there once was a “common morality,” but that belongs either to our actual or our mythological past as a nation. Now that we are growing exponentially in our religious diversity, such a functional Protestantism is breaking down.

The differences among these contributors come in relationship to ‘what to do about it.’ Some argue that the difficulties go away if everybody adopts the “translation” approach: change all your religious discourse into secular discourse and all will be well.

Others argue that this ‘watered down’ approach betrays a disrespect of religious particularity. One essayist points out that this ‘translation into secular language’ is also largely impossible as the vast majority of Americans already feel perfectly free to engage the public square in their own particular religious garb and they show no evidence of stopping. Stephen Prothero makes this point well in his book Religious Literacy. [T]he fact is that American political life is, as a factual matter, awash in religious reasons, religious arguments, and religious motivations.”

Nicholas Wolterstorff, a Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology at Yale University, contributes the insight that citizens in a democracy can lead themselves out of this chasm between them. “But given that there is no common morality, I think the only policy consistent with the idea of a liberal democracy is that, in their debates, citizens employ whatever morality they find themselves committed to—trying to find considerations that those who do not share their morality will find persuasive, listening to arguments against their position, and then, at the end of the day, participating in a fair vote.”

This ceasefire proposal could not be coming at a better time; the next months of the election season will be difficult enough for American citizens even without more emotionally charged rhetoric around the role of religion in this democracy.

(Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne will moderate a discussion of the book with Hollinger, Patel and Rogers from 12:30-2 p.m. Tuesday, June 24, at the Center for American Progress in Washington.)