{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01569506726457399, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.134020618556701, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
FILLING THE GAP

listen to the responses of those who disagree with them, and construct careful arguments that strive to avoid simple religious justification. In many instances, they do these things much more frequently than their opponents. However, while these practices are clearly beneficial in public dialogue, I fail to see how they can contribute to real deliberation as long as members of the Christian right are unwilling to consider alternative points of view. A primary concern of those who worry about the possible negative impact of the Christian right is the movement’s moral certitude. Unflinching belief in the rightness of one’s position and the wrongness of all other positions on any issue prevents compromise, a possibility that I would argue must be present in order for meaningful deliberation to occur. Though Shields clearly states that he is not arguing that Christian right members are deliberative democrats—only that they practice many deliberative norms—one often gets the sense that the practice of these norms is primarily for strategic reasons, done in the hopes of achieving the Christian right’s desired outcomes. There is nothing inherently wrong in doing this, and such actions are not unique to the Christian right. Many social movements and organized interests engage in similar tactics on a regular basis. However, it is unlikely that the practice of these norms could produce meaningful deliberation among members of the Christian right—possibly among members of the polity who observe the actions of the movement, but not among the members themselves. This is a strong piece of scholarship. Not everyone will agree with Shields’s conclusions, but anyone interested in the American polity will be well served by carefully considering this work.