This article reviews research on the effect of a conflict resolution practitioner's worldview on practice. The results revealed patterns connecting worldview frames with differing uses of power. Forty-three environmental and intercultural practitioners were interviewed, and narrative and metaphor analysis was used to reveal key worldview orientations in their practice stories. The results are correlated in continuums and "profiles" of the worldview orientation. The findings strengthen previous work questioning the effects of the traditional neutrality stance, deepen fieldwide arguments for the embedded nature of worldview and culture, and describe new methods that reveal some of the dynamics between worldview and practice.

The recent waves of Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, and other non-Judeo-Christian immigrants in American cities have increased religious diversity. This article examines changes in public attitudes on church-state issues in the Washington, D.C. metro area-a region that has experienced significant religious diversification. We find that between 1993 and 2000, aggregate support for public displays of Christianity decreased in the Washington area, and support for free exercise of minority religions increased. Yet the changing structure of church-state attitudes suggests that many residents are beginning to think of religious issues in a more polarized way.

I find myself both in sympathy with the Burgess's goals and deeply concerned about critical aspects missing from their message. I too, am dismayed to see the United States society becoming more and more divided, including movement to literally secede by Texas. I applaud the goal of a collaborative democracy, and agree that our field should be a critical part of it. However, I am also deeply concerned about arguments for individual acts and communication channels, when there seems to be a structural analysis missing; false equivalencies; and a lack of distinction being made between what I will call Authoritarians and Republicans.I am disturbed, for instance, by how their article characterizes the goals of the "right" and the "left"-first, as if they are monolithic and do not have meaningful internal divisions, and second by characterizing the divisions as: "On the right side of the divide, 'making liberals cry' has popular appeal. The objective of the progressive left seems more ambitious-to cancel and drive from the public square anyone who has ever expressed the slightest doubt about the merits of any aspect of the progressive agenda" (p. 2). It is critical to go deeper an ask what drives these apparent moves? I think it is critically important to analyze the systemic roots of the polarization the authors, wisely, want to dismantle. To go forward I want to stop a moment and make a distinction I am coming to find increasingly important to me. There are Republicans deeply committed to Democracy, and dialogue. So, for instance, it is notable that almost all of those testifying in the January 6 hearings were Republicans, showing by their actions that they believe in Democracy and that they want to be part of a conversation where the votes of the people matter.However, I believe some of the current Republican leadership do not believe in Democracy, and are trying to create an authoritarian government. These may be the "Bad Faith Actors" the authors refer to, but I think it is critically important to move beyond seeing a problem of "Bad" individual actors, and look at systems, being coordinated and instituted with intention, across many levels of the society. I believe the authoritarianism the authors fear is here, now. Much of the current polarization is by no means a coincidence, but a deliberate, and classic move, by Authoritarians. The "Manichaean, us-vs-them framing" (p. 3) is part of a larger set of goals.Response to "Applying conflict resolution insights to the hyper-polarized, society-wide conflicts threatening liberal democracies" by Burgess, Burgess and Kaufman.

There is a growing demand for religion and spirituality in conflict resolution processes. Is this dangerous or praiseworthy, and how should we respond? The authors reviewed literature from conflict resolution, psychology, and law. They conclude that faith, religion, spirituality, and values: (1) can have a safe place in the process; (2) need to be a subject of expertise for conflict resolvers; and (3) should be understood through the self-awareness work of being an ethical practitioner, regardless of their beliefs. The authors explore the implications of this for the selfdetermination of parties and the legitimacy of third-party roles.

No abstract