A parallax is a change in the spatial orientation of an object when viewed from two different vantage points. By measuring the changes in the position of the observer and the spatial shift in the appearance of the object, one can calculate the distance to and between objects in space. These kinds of calculations are used in astronomy to calculate the distances to and between stars and planets, and it is also the way that we are able to perceive depth in our visual field. Because our eyes receive sensory inputs independently and yet are close enough together to be able to combine these separate images in the brain, we are able to more accurately perceive the arrangement of objects in space. If you want to experience a parallax shift, hold your finger up directly in front of your face lining it up with some object in the distance, look at it while opening and closing one eye and then the other. You will notice that your finger will look like it is on one side of the object when you have your left eye closed and on the other when you close the right, and you will also notice that the further the object is from your finger, the wider the oscillation will appear.While parallaxes add depth to our experience of the world, they are also responsible for blind spots. The fact that we sense objects at the edges of our visual field without being able to really perceive them is due to the fact that our view on the world is always the composite of two images that cannot be completely reconciled with one another. So, that which allows us to experience the depth of the world also contributes to narrowing our total view of reality. In his essay on the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg, Dreams of a Spirit-Seer Elucidated by the Dreams of Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant spoke of such parallaxes arising in philosophical argument:

I formerly used to regard the human understanding in general merely from the point of view of my own understanding. Now I put myself in the position of someone else's reason, which is independent of myself and external to me, and regard my judgements, along with their most secret causes, from the point of view of other people. The comparison of the two observations yields, it is true, pronounced parallaxes, but it is also the only method for preventing optical deception, and the only means of placing the concepts in the true positions which they occupy relatively to the cognitive faculty of human nature.

The concept of "religion" in America seems to suffer and benefit from a similar kind of parallax.All those who consider "religion" have a certain perspective on its relevance, or its spatial orientation, vis--vispublic life. On a more maximal view, it is often difficult for believers to conceive of any facet of life to which religion does not apply, such that even tying one's shoes takes on the character of a religious experience. This maximal view of religion also has consequences for religious institutions, which may not see their religious mission as limited in its relevance only to co-religionists. Grounded as they are in the truth and pervasiveness of their faith, maximal religionists see no reason to consider their outreach to be anything other than continuous with the singular call of God placed on them for the sake of a world that is infused with the very creative Spirit of the Divine. On this view, then, there seems to be nothing that is not religious.Religious minimalists, on the other hand, understand religion as a species of individual belief. Among these, I would include many so-called "secularists" and non-believers, who see the claims of religion as being quite remote from the concerns of public life. On this view, religion is a private affair with very limited relevance. Thus, the very concept of a "religious institution" might seem nonsensical, since it is only individuals or collections of individuals who can be religious. In this sense, no thing is religious.As the recent Commonweal editorial points out, these differences in perspective are often rooted in deeper theological commitments concerning the relationship between the human and the Divine, nature and grace, and faith and works. They also might be rooted in the divisions between belief and unbelief as well as certain kinds of unbelief. In this latter category, for example, we might talk about "Catholic" atheists, who reject a maximalist religion and think that the minimalist view is not really "religion," or "liberal Protestant" atheists, who reject a religion of personal piety and think that maximalist religion is just politics by other means. Now is not the time to go into a complete taxonomy of American religion, but the basic point is that the concept of "religion" in America is a contested one regardless of whether the contestant is a believer or not.So, what does this all have to do with the phenomenon of parallax? Well, since "religion," for better or worse, is not really a theological concept in American life, but a sociologically contested one, it won't do to let believers simply self-identify as religious or not. Since "religion" is essentially contested, different perspectives will have to be brought to bear on the question of what counts as "religion." The benefit of this is that it allows us to perceive the depth of a world that includes such irreducibly perspectival concepts. Those who consider themselves "on the inside" of the concept might be reminded of the fragility of their faith and the fact that it is a dynamic relationship that is constantly moving as they make shifts in their own lives rather than a static possession with a perceptually fixed location. One day they might be comfortably sure of their theological line-of-sight, and the next they might be confused as to what side they are on. Those "on the outside" might be also compelled to consider the changes in contrast, the present and persistent absences, in their experience of the world that gives shape to the things they know by shading in the spaces where acquisitive thought fails. One day they might feel confident that they can see everything, and the next day they might be made aware of a potential blind spot.In this way, we might come to see that "religion" is necessarily a moving target precisely because we are in motion. So, we should not be surprised when the very concept itself is interrogated, as it is in the current debates over the supposed claims to religious freedom versus the right to healthcare. Yet, many commentators have been reluctant to take on the question of "religion" directly. It is precisely because training one's sights on the concept of "religion" results in a kind of oscillating parallax, that we would rather focus on issues that can be reduced to more stable questions, e.g. Is contraception medically necessary? Should religious groups be forced to pay for it? These are closer questions that don't move around as much when perspectives change. But it's too easy to ask, as Amy Sullivan does, "whether the federal government should be able to require a religious institution to use its own funds to pay for something it finds morally objectionable. The parallaxical question that Obama has raised (or maybe stumbled into) is: What is a "religious institution"? And this includes the question: What is "religion"?The Administration, for better or worse, seems to have dragged us into the dark and terrifying waters that lay beyond the shores of what we might consider "politics as usual," which Kant would have thought of as the bounds of commonsense rationality alone. He described this dangerous, but unavoidable, voyage in his Critique of Pure Reason:

This land, however, is an island, and enclosed in unalterable boundaries by nature itself. It is the land of truth (a charming name), surrounded by a broad and stormy ocean, the true seat of illusion, where many a fog bank and rapidly melting iceberg pretend to be new lands, and ceaselessly deceiving with empty hopes the voyager looking around for new discoveries, entwine him in adventures from which he can never escape and yet also never bring to an end.

So far, it has been an adventure. Hopefully, we won't all get lost at sea.