Who knew books could be so controversial? Actually, we take that back.

A professor of Religion, a professor of Law, a professor of Anthropology, and a professor of Sociology walk into a bar—we mean book review. What happens? Staffers Romane Thomas and Jennifer Nugent cover what happens next. 

Those who expected a staid and overly polite book launch were in for a surprise.

On Monday evening, La Maison Francaise hosted the formal launch of a collection of essays titled, Religion, Secularism and Constitutional Democracy. Editor Jean L. Cohen faced passionate criticism from an eclectic panel of academics that included Courtney Bender (professor of Religion), Jeremy Kessler (associate professor of Law), Rosalind Morris (professor of Anthropology), Gil Eyal (professor of Sociology) and moderator, (scorekeeper?) Adam Tooze. The collective work addressed the heated debates over the role of religion in public and political life in the US and Europe today.

After Cohen’s presentation of the book, each member of the panel gave a thoughtful critique of the work. Instead of a passive stream of praise, the professors discussed the main ideas in the work in a debate that ended up turning into somewhat of a war of the departments. Each professor defended their perspective based on their specialty, resulting in Columbia’s very own academic mean girls fight. And for one night only! Needless to say, the room was packed and the debate was heated, just like the vent we sat on…for lack of space.

Here are a few of the arguments that were brought up by the Columbia faculty:

• Religion specialist Courtney Bender, stated that, in her opinion, “the book glosses over religion.” She expressed disappointment that the different actors of religion (religious institutions and groups), were not studied in-depth. In her view, this is a major shortcoming of the book since it asks the readers to take the arguments “on faith” – pun intended.

• Jeremy Kessler joined Bender to express concern about the lack of focus on capitalism and business. Somehow the constitutional lawyer and the religion expert managed to find common ground in their belief that for-profit businesses and the entire system of capitalism are just as threatening to liberal constitutional democracy as religion.

• Rosalind Morris then took the floor and redirected the conversation. She defended the book against Bender’s accusation, saying that the work was not creating generalities, but instead acknowledged their existence. She further argued that secularists are partially to blame for the prevalence of religion, noting that in times of distress, Western democracies have used religious rhetoric to differentiate themselves from those savage communists. She then roused the confused students from their stupor by throwing in a quick point asserting that these issues all surrounded a larger issue of sex differences and sexuality.

• The entertainment continued as Gil Eyal took the stage, invalidating the entire panel discussion by acknowledging the fact that at the heart of this debate was a fundamental and irreconcilable difference in values. Eyal’s perspective became even more exciting, as he turned the capitalist criticisms on their heads and instead suggested that religion was simply a market for divine answers, and should be encouraged and regulated like any other capitalist endeavor.

After the panelists finished their speeches, the floor was open for a Q&A. Audience members asked questions from, “What is the difference between religion, superstition, and propaganda,” to, “How should this discussion influence the Iowa caucuses tonight?” The evening ended with the typical wine and cheese served by the Maison.