The religious divide might seem to be a formidable beast and city leaders have attempted admirably to deal with the 800-pound gorilla.

In 2004, Mayor Rocky Anderson initiated a unique project that, unfortunately, lost its momentum after the first phase. It would be good timing for the next mayor to revitalize this project. The city (incidentally, with the extensive involvement of Mark Alvarez, then the city’s community relations administrator – a figure who’s already been discussed in this blog) facilitated an eight-month open dialogue involving representatives of virtually every religious and secular stripe. At the end of it, in November 2005, an open letter to the community concluded:

Hope lies behind this letter – hope that by sharing some of what took place in the Bridging the Religious Divide dialogues others will be moved to take up their own conversations. Dialogue can sometimes be difficult. It is not without its rough spots. There are no guarantees. And it is not a cure-all solution to any problem. But it offers an opportunity to speak and be heard, to listen and respond. Out of such simple acts, profound possibilities can emerge.

Perhaps most important, many came away with a renewed sense of possibility. One participant, reflecting the feelings of many, summed it up this way: ‘I feared meaningful dialogue was not possible. I’ve seen possibilities for dialogue turn into ‘you’re wrong and now I’m going to tell you why.’ But this experience convinced me people are capable of honest open dialogue. It makes me hopeful.’

The letter ended with four continuing initiatives, sadly left unfulfilled, to this date. The conversation just started and, with so much at stake, it’s the most important one we ought to be sustaining.

The local media often return to the “religious divide” as good fodder for copy. However, once again, as today’s Tribune article indicates, the problem is conveniently characterized in “sound bites” which exaggerate empty dichotomy over meaningful and appropriate context. Rarely does the coverage add much to what is already communicated in local anecdotes. Certainly less sexy but far more attentive to the larger challenge at hand would be broader and deeper coverage. We need to take the knee-jerk restlessness out of this conversation.

Yes, Salt Lake City is exceptional in the American political landscape because of religion’s perplexing role in the public affairs of the city and of the state. However, our local unease about the mix of religion and politics also is replicated to varying degrees of magnitude in other cities and across the nation.

Sober-minded realism and care in choosing our words are sorely needed. Frankly, it’s quite astonishing the misinformation that’s been legitimized in debates about the religious divide. And, plenty of local talking heads – on the airwaves, particularly – do little to add any intellectual heft to such an important discussion. It borders on irresponsibility and, as consumers of media content, we should be more vocal and indignant about what passes for acceptable comprehensive dialogue. After all, the stakes for reconciling these tensions may ultimately have an impact upon our long-term viability as a major center of business, education, arts, and community life. It is somewhat worrisome that this debate flourishes even though city residents last saw, in the 1970s, a practicing Mormon as mayor.

There are a few hopeful signs on the landscape. Eighty-five miles to the north, Utah State University offers the only religious studies major in the Intermountain West. Clearly, the ecumenical nature of the program is a strong draw just a couple of years into its existence: A $1.5 million gift from the Charles and Annaley Redd Foundation established the university’s first chair in Religious Studies and first appointment solely in Religious Studies. The Charles Redd Chair in Religious Studies was quickly augmented by the Leonard J. Arrington Chair in Mormon History and Culture, sponsored by more than 45 donors. In addition, a $600,000 gift from the Tanner Charitable Trust has provided the new Religious Studies Program with an endowment for purchasing library materials to support the new program. Just this fall, the university hired the Arrington Chair faculty, Philip Barlow, to be the first person in a public institution to be specifically hired to study the history and culture of Mormonism.

There’s also a lot of other thoughtful material available. In particular, I would recommend downloading the transcript of Mormonism and Democratic Politics: Are They Compatible? from a May 2007 forum. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life also contain other materials that have particular local interest. Some good backgrounding makes an effective pretext for comprehending the complex political landscape which defines the city.

Not so ironically, a proposed sky bridge for the City Creek Development symbolizes the religious divide as no other controversy can. Rather than focusing on the architectural and urban design implications of the skywalk, the debate has become one of religious wills — opposition by Mayor Anderson (who is not a practicing Mormon) and the church’s insistence on constructing a skywalk. While each mayoral candidate has stated that he or she will not bend automatically to the church’s desires for project permits, it is uncertain yet which candidate will be able to minimize effectively the divide and demonstrate that Salt Lake City can be a compatible hybrid of celestialism and cosmopolitanism.