Changes

==Career==

==Career==

In 1990 he also converted to Catholicism.  Before then he was [[Lutheran]] pastor for some 30 years. He has written several books<ref>http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities/lccn-n50-3021 His Worldcat identity</ref>. His book ''The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America'' (1984) was widely reviewed. On January 8, 2009 he died, having struggled with with cancer.<ref>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31452&wf=rsscol</ref>

In 1990 he also converted to Catholicism.  Before then he was [[Lutheran]] pastor for some 30 years. He has written several books.<ref>http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities/lccn-n50-3021 His Worldcat identity</ref> His book ''The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America'' (1984) was widely reviewed. On January 8, 2009 he died, having struggled with with cancer.<ref>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31452&wf=rsscol</ref>

[[Image:Neuhaus.jpg|thumb|200px]]

[[Image:Neuhaus.jpg|thumb|200px]]

"{This} is an important book, coming onto the scene at a moment when the problems of democracy, public life, and religion are receiving a great deal of searching scrutiny. Neuhaus's argument deserves to be taken seriously, although the book does not present a sustained argument so much as a series of interconnected analyses, some of great import, such as the [[linkage]] of fundamentalists with secularists and the liberal churches. Yet the book is also flawed by too many fringe issues. It is not always logically consistent, especially in the section discussing some form of Communism as a likely candidate for filling the empty square, and certainly the extreme closeness of fit between religion and public philosophy in American history can and will be challenged. But, overall, this is a book worth reading, and more, worth thinking about."

"{This} is an important book, coming onto the scene at a moment when the problems of democracy, public life, and religion are receiving a great deal of searching scrutiny. Neuhaus's argument deserves to be taken seriously, although the book does not present a sustained argument so much as a series of interconnected analyses, some of great import, such as the [[linkage]] of fundamentalists with secularists and the liberal churches. Yet the book is also flawed by too many fringe issues. It is not always logically consistent, especially in the section discussing some form of Communism as a likely candidate for filling the empty square, and certainly the extreme closeness of fit between religion and public philosophy in American history can and will be challenged. But, overall, this is a book worth reading, and more, worth thinking about."

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

*National Review v. 36 (July 27 1984).

*National Review v. 36 (July 27, 1984).

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

"{This book} is a model of taking-everything-into-account. Neuhaus has read Cuddihy and John Courtney Murray, among many others, and he has conversed with both Jerry Falwell and Norman Lear. He is fair to everyone even as he is decisive. And his decisions are, as far as I can see, right. If this book is read as widely as it deserves to be, secular humanists (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) will henceforth have a hard time imposing their values while pretending they're morally neutral. The book's only fault is a sort of excess of fairness. . . . Neuhaus takes pains not to identify himself with the Right, but--intending no disrespect--I say he belongs with us. He certainly deserves our attention."

"{This book} is a model of taking-everything-into-account. Neuhaus has read Cuddihy and John Courtney Murray, among many others, and he has conversed with both Jerry Falwell and Norman Lear. He is fair to everyone even as he is decisive. And his decisions are, as far as I can see, right. If this book is read as widely as it deserves to be, secular humanists (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) will henceforth have a hard time imposing their values while pretending they're morally neutral. The book's only fault is a sort of excess of fairness. . . . Neuhaus takes pains not to identify himself with the Right, but--intending no disrespect--I say he belongs with us. He certainly deserves our attention."

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

*The Christian Century v. 102 (Mar. 13 1985).  

*The Christian Century v. 102 (Mar. 13 1985).  

*The New Republic v. 192 (June 10 1985).  

*The New Republic v. 192 (June 10, 1985).  

*The New York Review of Books v. 31 (Oct. 11 1984).  

*The New York Review of Books v. 31 (Oct. 11 1984).  

*The New York Times Book Review (Aug. 26 1984).

*The New York Times Book Review (Aug. 26 1984).