Bringing Back God: Goldenberg and the Vestigial State in American Religion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author, by questioning Naomi Goldenberg's approach on the "vestigial state" character of religion in its relationship with the modern State, makes a historical analysis of how nationalism and religious fundamentalism have been very dynamic in their relationship with the State, qualifying this thesis.

This is a very well-structured essay, which invites various questions about the current North American religious panorama.

The sometimes somewhat general analysis of some of the narrated facts could be questioned, but it is understood that it is typical of a global essay that seeks to discuss Goldenberg's ideas.

As an improvement, I would only suggest that the author adapt the bibliographical references, in the text and at the end of it, to the journal's standards.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback on this paper and your comments. I have added a section in the introduction (lines 35-43) to address some of the generalist nature of the paper and point towards the theoretical dynamics I’m arguing for. I also addressed both the in-text citations and the references sections according to journal standard to the best of my understanding.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Just to explain my responses that were less than "High":

Originality - the thesis/argument of the paper is certainly original (to my knowledge) and focuses on a refinement of a senior scholar's concept.  Much of the explanatory material is dependent on secondary sources, and among those who study Christian nationalism and fundamentalism, is already well-known.  However, this material does work to support the main argument.

Engagement with sources... - I only marked this as "low" because there is no firsthand engagement (as in an ethnographic study) with Christian nationalists, fundamentalists, and right-wing evangelicals in the study.  But this is not the author's intended method.  The argument is made on the basis of a thorough review of relevant literature, and this is well chosen (among many works relevant to the subject).

I appreciate that the author did not intend a demolition of Goldenberg's work, but rather a further refinement of it.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for positive feedback on this paper and your comments. I have added a section in the introduction (lines 35-43) to address how I’m and why I’m engaging with the literature in such a way and point towards future applications of the research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Line 81: that this model …. Instead of “that these this model”

2.      Line 101: of these institutions … instead of “of these in these institutions”

3.      Line 186: 1910s-1950s … instead of “1910. s-1950s”

4.      Line 247: Please check this : 1960. s-1970s

5.      Please check this: 1980. s-1990s: and 1980. s-1990s:

6.      I suggest that the work has a section of the traditional CONCLUSION in academic articles  

 

1.      An explanation of the methodological approach could enrich the entire work  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Of a good standard but require minor editorial works 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and comments. I have fixed all the errors you noticed on lines 81, 101, 186, 247, and so on. I have also retitled the final section as a “conclusion” to better illustrate my closing arguments and summary. To your point on explaining the methodology, I have added a section in the introduction (lines 35-43) to address how and why I’m engaging with the secondary literature as such. This should hopefully give insight into my methodology and practical considerations for the future.