Book Description
"If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.
Many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion. But as Ann Coulter reveals in this, her most explosive book yet, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on our Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: liberalism is a religion—a godless one.
And it is now entrenched as the state religion of this county.
Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).
Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.
Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution are all there is—Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?
Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.
Fearlessly confronting the high priests of the Church of Liberalism and ringing with Coulter's razor-sharp wit, Godless is the most important and riveting book yet from one of today's most lively and impassioned conservative voices.
"Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'"
—From Godless
Customer Reviews:
So much hatred, so little brains..........2007-10-09
I wonder why some people in this country who claim to be such good Christians have no problem with our government slaughtering thousands of families? If the church of liberalism is godless, then what would you call a government who has done just that? Invaded another country for its own personal gain? I just can't help but wonder what makes Ann Coulter tick, that her vision is so clearly focused in one direction while totally ignoring the sins of her own. I am reminded of the Bible passage that talks about removing the log from one's own eye before attempting to remove the speck from a brothers. These kind of books will do nothing more than to continue to polorize this country, other than making her more money from idiots who cheer her on.
Makes for good educational reading........2007-10-07
Read this and other far right books. Read far left liberalism books. You should realize that both the far right and the far left are necessary evils. As long as the left and right agree not to agree we as a nation will prosper. Much like our government. When both parties agree you best worry! Imagine our nation without the right. Many would join on the dark side. Imagine our nation without the left. We would be how should I say, Talibaned or held to the strict standards of Sharia law, in the Christian sense. Careful how far we lean. We might just fall and not get back up.
Ann is dead on....again!.......2007-10-03
This book is so dead on and rock solid. Everything in this book, footnotes the source, and is packed with information on the whole liberal thought process. The book is also full of analogies like 'liberals freak out if a tree is cut down, but could care less about aborting babies'. This book along with Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior, are awesome at exposing a lot of this left wing agenda. Ann Coulter, is/was an attorney and knows her stuff. Of course all the liberals are going to rate this a '1' so no one reads it, but you will not be disappointed in this book.
Angry, intolerant, irrational.......2007-09-30
Miss Coulter is angry and starved for attention. This book is a manifestation of her mean-spirited partisanship, the type that still clings to the failed neocon policies of G. W. Bush. As has been pointed out in previous reviews, her "endnotes" are inaccurate, her allegations are often baseless, and her so-called "facts" are oftentimes nothing more than right-wing talking points.
It's hard to imagine why she is so angry and distraught over America's current condition. After all, her sacred Republican Party has held the White House for all but 12 years since 1968. And since 1994, the congress has been in the hands of the religious right. And yet, here's Coulter, trying to blame all of our nation's social ills on whoever she deems as "liberal." What have the Republicans been doing over that vast span of time, if not addressing the very real social problems we face? What other priorities have taken precedence? Where have they budgeted the trillions in taxpayer dollars that could have gone into improving our schools, rebuilding the infrastructure, and keeping our economy strong and vibrant? Who has driven our country deeply into debt, especially to the Chinese Communists?
Why doesn't Ms Coulter address any of these salient points instead of trying to further divide a population that's growing sick of partisan bickering and no-compromise "leadership."
It would seem to me that any rational individual could see through her smokescreen of indignation and her strawman arguments.
Ann, here's fifty dollars. Please buy a clue.
Conservative, thought provoking spewings on the usual subjects.......2007-09-24
Interestingly, this book reads most like a similarly toned antithesis of Richard Hitchens' god is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything. Coulter has done what Hitchens did in the way of in your face inflammatory "journalism," although with an obviously pro-religious slant and bonus topics: abortion, crime and (lack of) punishment, the environment, public school teachers, 9/11, and even the war in Iraq. Although her book is well researched, it is a clinic on a skilled writer's ability to spin information in such a way to support their cause, opinion or point of view, especially as relates to evolution versus intelligent design. Noteworthy:
"...even Chernobyl wasn't as bad as people thought." (p 6) [I beg to differ. Read Voices of Chernobyl by Svetlana Alexievich]
"Anyone found guilty of homosexuality under Sharia law has a wall dropped on him. End of story." (p 28)
Refers to Dukakis as, the "Greek midget" (p 64)
Of today's Democrats, "It's as if all the brain-damaged people of America got together and formed a voting bloc." (p 84)
"The most important value to liberals is destroying human life." (p 97)
About the Jersey Girls (four 9/11 widows) or as she dubs them, the "weeping widows," she writes, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." (p 103)
"The only sort of authority Cindy Sheehan has is the uncanny ability to demonstrate, by example, what body types should avoid wearing shorts in public." (p 128)
"In real life, these taxpayer-supported parasites [public school teachers] are inculcating students in the precepts of the Socialist Party of America--as understood by retarded people." (p 148)
"Priests: 820 abused children per year; educators: 32,000 abused children per year." (p 168) [for those of you who went to public schools, there are a heck of a lot more public school teachers than priests]
Coulter's time spent arguing the pros of the death penalty as a punishment might more Christianly be spent encouraging prospective death penalty candidates to accept a certain someone as their personal savior, confess, repent, or whatever they need to do to get access to the non-hot section of the afterlife. She writes as if societal issues are black and white and the beliefs of Republicans are mutually exclusive of those of Democrats and vice versa. This has not been my experience. Although hatemongering is not my genre, I found that she made some excellent points during certain moments of lucidity. In fact, I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with a significant portion of several chapters, while disagreeing ardently with the rest. Her attempt to convince atheists (read "liberals") that evolution is a crock and intelligent design is the way to go will probably be about as effective as Richard Hitchens' and (author of The God Delusion) Richard Dawkins' (who, by the way, she calls a "congenital retard" (p 295)) attempts to do the opposite.
Amazon.com
In this unique biography of Thomas Jefferson, leading journalist and social critic Christopher Hitchens offers a startlingly new and provocative interpretation of our Founding Father. Situating Jefferson within the context of America's evolution and tracing his legacy over the past two hundred years, Hitchens brings the character of Jefferson to life as a man of his time and also as a symbolic figure beyond it.
Conflicted by power, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and acted as Minister to France yet yearned for a quieter career in the Virginia legislature. Predicting that slavery would shape the future of America's development, this professed proponent of emancipation elided the issue in the Declaration and continued to own human property. An eloquent writer, he was an awkward public speaker; a reluctant candidate, he left an indelible presidential legacy.
Jefferson's statesmanship enabled him to negotiate the Louisiana Purchase with France, doubling the size of the nation, and he authorized the Lewis and Clark expedition, opening up the American frontier for exploration and settlement. Hitchens also analyzes Jefferson's handling of the Barbary War, a lesser-known chapter of his political career, when his attempt to end the kidnapping and bribery of Americans by the Barbary states, and the subsequent war with Tripoli, led to the building of the U.S. navy and the fortification of America's reputation regarding national defense.
In the background of this sophisticated analysis is a large historical drama: the fledgling nation's struggle for independence, formed in the crucible of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and, in its shadow, the deformation of that struggle in the excesses of the French Revolution. This artful portrait of a formative figure and a turbulent era poses a challenge to anyone interested in American history -- or in the ambiguities of human nature.
Discover More Eminent Lives
Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code by Matt Ridley |
Freud: Inventor of the Modern Mind by Peter Kramer |
Machiavelli: Philosopher of Power by Ross King |
Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time by Karen Armstrong |
George Washington: The Founding Father by Paul Johnson |
Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy's Guide by Joseph Epstein |
Book Description
In this unique biography of Thomas Jefferson, leading journalist and social critic Christopher Hitchens offers a startlingly new and provocative interpretation of our Founding Father. Situating Jefferson within the context of America's evolution and tracing his legacy over the past two hundred years, Hitchens brings the character of Jefferson to life as a man of his time and also as a symbolic figure beyond it.
Conflicted by power, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and acted as Minister to France yet yearned for a quieter career in the Virginia legislature. Predicting that slavery would shape the future of America's development, this professed proponent of emancipation elided the issue in the Declaration and continued to own human property. An eloquent writer, he was an awkward public speaker; a reluctant candidate, he left an indelible presidential legacy.
Jefferson's statesmanship enabled him to negotiate the Louisiana Purchase with France, doubling the size of the nation, and he authorized the Lewis and Clark expedition, opening up the American frontier for exploration and settlement. Hitchens also analyzes Jefferson's handling of the Barbary War, a lesser-known chapter of his political career, when his attempt to end the kidnapping and bribery of Americans by the Barbary states, and the subsequent war with Tripoli, led to the building of the U.S. navy and the fortification of America's reputation regarding national defense.
In the background of this sophisticated analysis is a large historical drama: the fledgling nation's struggle for independence, formed in the crucible of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and, in its shadow, the deformation of that struggle in the excesses of the French Revolution. This artful portrait of a formative figure and a turbulent era poses a challenge to anyone interested in American history -- or in the ambiguities of human nature.
Customer Reviews:
There are so many Jefferson books..........2007-09-28
...and this one is not among the top ten. That should be a helpful enough review for most readers. May I recommend my own listmania--Jefferson's Shadows--as a better starting point for learning about the Sage?
Astonishing Disappointment.......2007-07-29
Wow! This book was a complete letdown. First of all...this book is only 188 pages long. And they're small pages! To think that you could even come close to encompassing even the public life of Jefferson in less than 200 pages is laughable. Secondly, instead of focusing on particular points in Jefferson's life, Hitchens attempts to cover many different topics, in no specific order and thus barely scratches the surface on any of them. To say the least, this book left me wanting more...a LOT more. I don't know if Hitchens just decided to slap together a quick book on TJ or if he was given an impossible deadline to meet by the publisher. But this book doesn't even cover one subject about Jefferson partially, let alone many subjects completely. The positive side to this book is that it is short, so the painful incompleteness only lasts a couple of hours. For those wanting a good book that encompasses more than a mere cursory look at Thomas Jefferson I would certainly recommend looking elsewhere. For those looking to burn a couple of hours who don't really care what they read...I would still recommend a different book...a good fiction or something of the like. This one gets a definite PASS!!
Hitchens on Jefferson.......2007-05-12
Part of the Eminent Lives series Christopher Hitchens has written a great fairly short biography of Thomas Jefferson that examines the man warts and all. Off most interest to many these days will be his constant battle with his conscience versus the practicality of freeing all the slaves in the South.
That while this is meant to be a short history it is by no means one that skimps. Christopher Hitchens eloquent style is well used her getting the idea across while not being too wordy. He uses Jefferson's own words and writings to demonstrate how the great man felt during his lifetime.
It is hard to describe how important Jefferson was to the history of the United States, whether it be his penning most of the Declaration of Independence to his major role in the monumental Louisiana Purchase towards the end of his career. He even managed to provide the foundation for the modern Library of Congress after the fire that destroyed 2/3s of the book in their collection. Then there is Monticello, his house and lands, of a most impressive type.
The man was not infallible as he had his troubles over slavery, his half-black mistress and his bitter rivalries with some of the other major players of the early American experience. He was an writer of note, philosopher, orator, politician and diplomat in extremis. A man not afraid to take it the enemy when needed as seen in his handling of the Muslim Barbary Pirates. A test for a young nation that Jefferson made sure they passed.
Who better than Christopher Hitchens to tell us his fascinating life's tale.
Jefferson the polymath.......2007-03-08
Hitchens has written a brilliant and concise biography of Jefferson, a complex, multitalented and flawed man. Writer, author, architecht, botanist, diplomat, president. America was fortunate that President John Adams served only one term and lost his re-election bid (barely) to Jefferson because of 3 things: 1. War on Terror; Jefferson sent the US Navy to the Barbary Coast and tamed the pirates of North Africa who kidnapped Americans and demanded ransom. Adams preferred to pay ransom. Jefferson did away with this menace once and for all. 2. Louisiana Purchase; Adams was dead set against this bargain purchase which Jefferson obtained from France for 4 cents an acre. 3. Lewis and Clark expedition; here Jefferson had a vision of manifest destiny. Adams ridiculed Jefferson's vision as fanciful and a waste of money. Had Adams won re-election, America would certainly have been different today. On a matter of character, Adams was clearly a better man. He wanted to end slavery. Jefferson (unlike George Washington) did not free his slaves even upon his death with the exception of his mistress Sally Hemmings and their 3 children. Hitchens did a great job putting the story of this complex man together in a short book.
Excellent.......2007-01-03
Hitchins is brilliant, and even if he were not, I would read anything on TJ. Good book.
Book Description
The Phoenix Affirmations, named for the town in which the principles were created and the mythological bird adopted by ancient Christians as a symbol of resurrection, offers disillusioned and spiritually homeless Christians and others a sense of hope and a more tolerant, joyful, and compassionate message than those we often hear from the media and some Christian leaders. These twelve central affirmative principles of Christian faith are built on the three great loves that the Bible reveals: love of God, love of neighbor, and love of self. They reflect commitments to environmental stewardship, social justice, and artistic expression as well as openness to other faiths. Transcending theological and culture wars, inclusive and generous in spirit and practice, these principles ask believers and seekers alike to affirm their Christian faith in a fresh way.
Customer Reviews:
Progressive Christianity.......2007-05-21
The core values of Christianity are challenged in this summary of what many of today's Christians think and believe today.
Thoughtful & Thought-provoking.......2007-03-29
I won't go into much detail on the theology of this little book -- suffice it to say that the size of the book has nothing to do with the HUGE impact these affirmations will have on fundamental/conservative/evangelical/liberal Christianity. The thoughts expressed here are those of a "new" look -- progressive Christianity and so challenge the core beliefs of Christianity that the thoughts expressed here would be difficult to accept for any of the "normal" theological liones of thought.
Having said that, however, these affirmations are, as the authors clearly state, only a beginning in the process of discovering what Christianity will have to be about if it is to survive into the 21st century. Read this book with an open mind and heart and it will affirm and challenge you. Coming from an evangelical background, it was both challenging and frightening -- but not in a way that was altogether negative. Judging from the thought that went into these concepts, and the wave of interest they are generating around the USA (the world?), the church is alive ... and growing. It will truly be exciting to see what Christianity wil be like in the 21st century!
Faith for the 21st century.......2006-11-05
This book is an excellent summary of what thoughtful, progressive Christians are thinking today. It is [rpvocative, not exhaustive, in laying out an agenda for living out one's faith in this complex contemporary American culture. Both as an individual study and as a group discussion, the author helps Christians to articulate a stronger faith and non-beleivers to see a way to amke sense of the Christian gospel.
The Phoenix Affirmations.......2006-11-03
The Phoenix Affirmations was a real eye opener for me. It has caused me to look at Christianity in a whole new way. For me this book paints the future of the Christian church.
Welcome to Progressive Christianity.......2006-09-03
Eric Elnes is just one of many Christians trying to change the discussion of Christianity and Christian values in American culture today. This small book, built around the 12 affirmations he and colleagues, friends, and co-religionists in Arizona have put together, is a fine summation of what many Christians today would like folks to understand should be the character of 21st century Christianity. It is a book whose ideas resonate with those in other faiths as well. It should be an invitation to those who have walked away from the church to reconsider their faith and return to work with others to make sure the church is tolerant, inclusive, compassionate, and is a church that takes faith, prayer, and the Bible seriously (if not literally in the last case). Each chapter covers an affirmation, treating it in most cases with an incident drawn from Elnes's pastoral experiences. It is an easy read. Give it your consideration.
Book Description
The Reverend Barry Lynn explains why the Religious Right has it all wrong.
In the wake of the 2004 presidential election, the Religious Right insisted that George Bush had been handed a mandate for an ideology-based social agenda, including the passage of a “marriage amendment” to ban same-sex unions, diversion of tax money to religious groups through “faith-based initiatives,” the teaching of creationism in public schools, and restrictions on abortion. Led by an aggressive band of television preachers and extremist radio personalities, the Religious Right set its sights on demolishing the wall of separation between church and state.
The Reverend Barry Lynn is a devout Christian, but this propaganda effort disturbs him deeply. He argues that politicians need to stop looking to the Bible to justify their actions and should consult another source instead: the U.S. Constitution.
When the Founding Fathers of our great nation created the Constitution, they had seen firsthand the dangers of an injudicious mix of religion and government. They knew what it was like to live under the yoke of state-imposed faith. They drew up a model for the new nation that would allow absolute freedom of religion. They knew that religion, united with the raw power of government, spawns tyranny.
Yet the Religious Right now seems distrustful of those principles inherent in the Constitution, viewing the separation of church and state only as a dangerous anti-Christian principle imposed upon our nation. In reality, the separation between church and state has been an important ally to religion: with the state out of the picture, hundreds of religions have grown and prospered. Religion doesn’t need the government’s assistance, any more than it is practical or appropriate for religious doctrine to be fostered in the government or taught in public schools.
As an explicitly religious figure speaking out against the Religious Right, Lynn has incurred the wrath of such personalities as Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, who once said Lynn was “lower than a child molester.” Lynn has continuously taken on these radicals of the Religious Right calmly and rationally, using their own statements and religious fervor to prove that when they attack the constitutionally mandated separation, they’re actually attacking freedom of religion.
In Piety & Politics, the Reverend Barry Lynn continues the fight—educating Americans about what is at stake, explaining why it is crucial that we maintain the separation of church and state, and galvanizing us to defend the honor of our religious freedom.
Customer Reviews:
Strong argument to protect our founding ideals.......2007-09-15
I highly recommend this book. While it's pretty easy to make the argument that our country is better off continuing with a secular government, what is difficult is refuting all the false rhetoric, and there is a ton of it, from those that would prefer we mutate into a Christianist nation (as Andrew Sullivan would put it). Rev. Lynn puts forth a highly readable argument that our nation's future interest is best served following the legacy of our founding framers, an argument firmly grounded in the ideals that were ratified by the founding framers in our beloved Constitution.
Lynn is also no slouch in the history department, doing a far better job for example of refuting Christian Nation historical revisionism than Jon Meacham's American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation while requiring a lot less sentences to do so. In fact, Lynn sells himself short by using the back of the book cover to market his book to the choir; his respectful tone towards Christianity while defeating arguments we'd be better served with a Roy Moore fantasy could have garnered a more effective response from the public if he'd also marketed this book towards conservative Christians as well, many are whom are unaware of their sects' legacy of supporting separationism or how far their current day leaders really want to go in regards to increasing government power to endorse a particular version of faith (e.g., already working on attempting to re-supress birth control).
I'm knocking off a star for my standard reason: no footnotes, inexcusable in this day and age. As a member of the Americans United for the Separation of Church & State, I have complete trust in Rev. Lynn's integrity; but any author who wants to put forth an argument based on a set of premises should footnote those premises. I also thought his occassional references that he's pro-choice was uncalled for and reduce the odds of his changing minds of anti-abortionists. While the pro-choice platform stands a better chance of succeeding if we maintain our constitutional republic's disestablishment nature, the platform itself has little to do with the argument on whether we should continue to limit government power on religious matters. I can only assume that Rev. Lynn is out soliciting pro-choice interest groups to join AU, which I found distasteful.
As someone who has probably read too many of these separation argument books, here are some highlights I particularly enjoyed that are unique relative to other books I've read on this topic:
1. President's Grant's failed attempt to amend the constitution to remove mandatory Protestant instruction in public schools while refusing aid to religious schools to make Catholics more welcome in the public school systems; an effort that took place during one of the first times that Christianists were initially able to break down the wall somewhat (for a complete history, see Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism).
2. The end-game objective of the Bush administration's efforts to fund religious organizations rather than government providing services directly as an end-run attempt around our civil rights.
3. The willingness of certain conservative Christian organizations to suppress speech on issues in staged debates (Rev. Lynn directly experienced this as one of the debaters), essentially stacking the deck on what questions could be posed to the forum and therefore censoring their events.
A breath of fresh air.......2007-07-20
Lynn brings a breath of fresh air to the current religious-political controversies. His writing restores my faith in the ability to have a rational relationship between secular and religious aspects of American society.
I highly recommend it.
Superbly Detailed Study of Issues over Religious Freedom.......2007-06-17
`Piety & Politics' by The Reverend Barry W. Lynn is a catalogue of, as the subtitle states, `The Right-Wing Assault on Religious Freedom', from his position as director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. For starters, let me say that I am in almost 100% agreement with everything Dr. Lynn says. He makes a far more reasoned and levelheaded case against the extremes of American fundamentalist Christians than the archly polemical `Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris. It is even superior, albeit far less broad in scope than Tony Campolo's `Speaking My Mind'. My agreement with the good Pastor Lynn may have something to do with our both having been raised in that most Christian oriented of blue state cities, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, home of, among other things, the Moravian church in America and neighbor, in Allentown, of the most important Lutheran-oriented college in the country, Muhleberg College.
If I have any argument with Pastor Lynn, it is in the fact that he does not look deep inside the psyche of the `Christian Conservative Right' and explain its workings. But, before getting further along with that thought, let me say that what Lynn has accomplished is utterly necessary and quite valuable. It reminds me of a cross between Al Franken's cleaning out the Conservative Augean stables of misrepresentations and the strategy of the first Bill Clinton presidential campaign, where his media staff examined opponents statements and news in general under a microscope, and immediately replied to any and every misstatement or refutable claim. It is that kind of vigilance which must be maintained if we are to maintain both religious and personal freedoms.
One thing which strikes me as really unfortunate about this struggle is that while Christian scriptures and the U.S. Constitution agree almost perfectly in letting the state do its thing and letting believers get on with their worship, or freedom from it, the Christian Right Wing persists in forcing their brand of belief on various venues of the country at large. One must even puzzle over how this agenda became connected with the Republican Party, since my most favorable depiction of Republican doctrine includes the principle of expanding, not limiting personal freedoms.
So, while Pastor Lynn's story is one of vigilance, it does little to help us understand the opposition.
Therefore, I offer this as a suggestion for Pastor Lynn's next book.
Please be clear that a large part of Christian doctrine involves vigorously spreading the faith, a doctrine that is amply stated in scriptures. While some denominations are more militant about it than others, bringing in new members to the Lutheran or Baptist or Anglican, or Catholic or Orthodox or Pentecostal or Presbyterian confession is on everyone's agenda. And, routine aspects of even the most mild-mannered denominations (my Lutheran denomination, for example) sound pretty militant in their native habitat. Just today we had a hymn which commanded us to be `...soldiers of the cross, Lift high his royal banner. It must not suffer loss...! Pretty strong stuff from a tame corner of Pennsylvania. Let me join this with the fact that I lived through exactly the same public school bible readings, prayers, and Christmas pageants in High School as did Pastor Lynn. For all I know, we attended Liberty High School together, albeit not in the same class. All this was quite taken for granted and pretty comfortable for an obedient Pennsylvania Lutheran teenager. One can even believe that prayers are genuinely effective in focusing our mind on the task at hand, so they would seem to be ideal as a mental ritual to get the day off right. (Of course, as Pastor. Lynn more than adequately demonstrates, things are not so rosy for the non-Protestants forced to either participate in or embarrassingly abstain from such rituals).
So if the Christian faith includes a belief in taking its message to all nations, how can a fellow Christian, the Reverend Lynn, oppose the efforts of the good Reverend doctors' Falwell, Robertson, et. al. This is surely why true Christian believers accost Dr. Lynn with such anger at Cleveland airports. One can go even further and cite the Christian doctrine that justice comes only from God (See Romans, especially), so how can courts dispense justice without Christian underpinning.
The problem with this belief is that Christians don't have a monopoly on the divine source for justice, as the Greeks had this idea at least 400 years before Christ (see The Orestean Trilogy by Aeschylus). Our legal theory does, in fact base itself on both traditions in maintaining the DISINTERESTED status of judges.
The problem with Falwell and Co, as Pastor Lynn adequately demonstrates, is that they have an almost total disregard for the truth, and consider the most transparently fallacious ad hominom arguments to be OK, as long as it's for THEIR Christian cause. The one saving grace is that they underestimate the intelligence of the American public, most of whom can sense the perversity of their arguments for what they are. The use of the worst kind of dishonest tactics coupled to an honorable doctrine leads me to the conclusion that Falwell, Robertson, et. al. are NOT interested in advancing Christianity, they are interested in personal political power. As such, they deserve no respect from honest Christians. I am all for encouraging prayer, Bible study, stirring hymns, and Christian liturgy, as long as my audience has signed on to the fait which recommends these practices.
I thank God for Pastor Lynn's vigilance and his sharing this information with us so that we can better understand this dishonesty.
Separation of Truth and Bull.......2007-06-08
A few years back I was listening to a news report about how first time homeowners were struggling with the complexities involved in buying their initial home. The report stated that the Bush Administration was planning on using members of its faith-based initiative to help buyers navigate the confusing maze. HUH??? What does the church have to do with offering information on buying a home? I was already aware that Bush was attempting to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in hiring despite being government funded which made this kind of handoff of government responsibility even that much more offensive. As bad as I thought it was, it was far worse and far more cynical than I ever imagined.
Rev. Barry Lynn has long been vilified by the Religious Right but the truth is he may be about the best friend Christians have. The author writes, "church-state separation has been a great boon to religion". Among industrialized nations the United States has been rather unique in its continuing observance of expressed religious faith. The United States was also groundbreaking in its establishment of a secular government. Coincidence? Barry Lynn's argument is that it is America's secularism that has allowed religion to thrive. In most European countries the churches are subsidized by the state. As Rev. Lynn states, "They want for only one thing: congregants" So why is the Religious Right so eager to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Lynn believes that the ultimate goal of the Religious Right is to create a theocratic state with themselves in charge. I have to respectfully disagree. As little respect as I have for Dobson, Robertson and the now deceased Falwell I really doubt they believe they are going to somehow take over the American government. A much more likely scenario is that the church would be consumed by the government.
George W. Bush has been characterized as perhaps the strongest ally that Christianity has ever had in the Oval Office. The truth is the Bush Administration has used religion more cynically than probably any administration ever. The faith-based initiative was nothing more than a sop to try and woo evangelicals and finally make some headway with black voters. Bush continually used religious issues and his own purported faith to try and shore up his base and push his agendas while religious leaders like Dobson and Robertson promoted policies important to Bush and the GOP. I can remember Dobson presenting a wish list to the GOP that included eliminating the capital gains tax because I guess that's what Jesus would want.
The author writes a much needed defense against claims by Rev. Jim Wallis that the ACLU and Rev. Lynn's Americans for the Separation of Church and State are nothing more than the flip side of the Religious Right. I wrote in a review of `God's Politics' that Rev. Wallis was way off base in his attack on secularism which was a real shame because he presents himself as a bridge between fundamentalists and moderates.
Rev. Lynn's point is that it is the struggle that makes the church strong. In fact struggle is an integral part of the Christian faith. As the author writes, "Why should they give more on Sunday if they already paid taxes to support religion?" Are churches going to work harder to attract members when they're supported by the government? It wasn't secularists or atheists who pushed for separating Church and State. It was Christians who hated having the government write prayers or give tax money to other denominations or ban certain beliefs. The people who dreamed of a wall of separation between church and state lived through the results of their union. Perhaps secularists and atheists should lobby for the wall to come down. It's likely to be the easiest and quickest way to render Christianity irrelevant.
I notice that Amazon is selling Piety and Politics paired with Letter to a Christian Nation in the Best Value section. I found Piety and Politics far more readable than Sam Harris's angry polemic. Between the two this is definitely the one to get.
Why we need the First Amendment.......2007-05-21
First let me say, the Rev. Barry Lynn writes very clearly and logically, so following his argument is easy. He explains what the First Amendment is, what it tries to accomplish and why we need it.
The simple truth is that most religions think they have the real truth, the whole truth and all of god's will, and hence everyone must believe in Jesus, Allah, the angel Moroni, Krishna or whoever. Even unbelieving atheists have a tendency to think they have "the real truth." The problem is, with everyone "knowing" the only and final truth, how do we live together without constantly arguing with one another. Obviously, we must be tolerant of the other fellows belief and agree to look for what we believe in common, and not constantly fight and argue.
In this situation all faiths must be treated equally, and especially the government must not prefer, or push, or support any one faith in preference to any other. It is especially important no government body, i.e. no public body, school, court, administration, etc. favor the Christian religion, because Christians are the majority, which might easily overwhelm a minority faith.
The First Amendment simply implements this concept. It informs the government to stay out of all religions, don't push any, don't even think of favoring any, don't even say a public prayer, for all prayers are sectarian supported by one but not another faith.
Book Description
Darryl Hart, the highly regarded historian of religion, contends that appeals to Christianity for social and political well-being fundamentally misconstrue the meaning of the Christian religion. His book weaves together historical narratives of American Protestantism's influence on the nation's politics, and commentary on recent writing about religion and public life, with expositions of Christian teaching. The tapestry that emerges is a compelling faith-based argument for keeping Christianity out of politics.
Customer Reviews:
Desperately needed; wonderfully clear.......2007-08-12
We need this book right now. The arguments in America of 2007 over church and state are approaching delirium. We need Hart's well informed, well documented and decisive approach to the question. This is one of the best books I've seen on the issue, and one that is especially meaningful for Christians. Also recommended: the works of the great historian Mark Noll. --- anneobrienrice@mac.com
An Interesting Approach.......2007-05-03
Original, thought-provoking and oftentimes controversial, Darryl Hart's book, A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State, presents a new perspective of the proper boundaries of the Christian Church in the political arena of the United States of America. Hart ardently supports the strict separation of church and state and he presents this much-debated topic as a study of the negative effects of American politics on the Christian religion, rather than the negative influence of religion on politics. Offering a rebuttal to those conservative Christians who believe the secularization of American society heralds its downfall, Hart declares that this secularization is saving Christianity from being misemployed and trivialized by supporting political agendas.
Hart assumes that Christianity is an apolitical faith whose realm of authority only concerns the personal and private matters of salvation for Christians. Christianity has no role in political machinations and its public advocacy is not necessary for moral or good government. Reiterating the Augustinian conceptualization of the City of God and the City of Man, Hart argues that politics should focus on the material and physical world and the church should focus solely on the spiritual Kingdom that is to come. Christianity, he posits, relates only to the spiritual realm and therefore cannot inform the organization of society, such as the endorsement of a certain polity, or sanction government programs, such as social-welfare reform. Christians, he believes, are called to live perpetually hyphenated lives in which they constantly struggle with their identities and responsibilities as Christians and as citizens. However, Hart makes a distinction between the individual social action that Jesus asks of his followers and official church support of political social justice programs that seemingly destroys the transcendent quality of Christianity.
The book contains nine chapters, each analyzing a facet of the relationship between church and state in American history. Hart provides thorough historical context, illustrates the various interpretations of each issue and proposes his argument in comparison to previous opinions. Hart discredits the supposition that the fundamental ideas of liberty and rights in American democracy were rooted in Christianity, specifically New England Puritanism and Calvinism. He maintains that Christian denominations had no political motives and that religious principles were not integral to the basis of American government though they had a definite influence on society. He denounces the revivalist movements for their blatant endorsement of democracy that crossed the line between the responsibilities of church and state. In his analysis of more recent examples, Hart discusses parochial education controversies and criticizes the compassionate conservative movement for tying Christian duty with political activism, thus replacing the church's higher spiritual duties with the more mundane and ultimately less important matters of the material world.
Since his opinions counter the social teachings of numerous Protestant denominations as well as the social doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Hart admits that his ideas are more suggestions than assertions. Therefore, he does not defend the theological basis for his suggestions, since other Christian denominations base their counter-arguments on different doctrine. Though unorthodox, Hart's new perspective is strong enough to contend with the previously established views of church and state and worth serious consideration.
Preaching to the choir?.......2007-01-10
I am a Secular Humanist who is alarmed by the idea that government policy should be dictated by religious belief. The author's thesis is that religious persons should be concerned as well. I thought that the book was well written, but I doubt that it will convince those who want to remove the Bill of Rights from our courts so as to make room for the Ten Commandments.
Darryl Hart points out that this nation was not, in fact, established on a theological foundation. Furthermore, dynamiting the dam between church and state is an unpredictable affair, fraught with the potential for unintended consequences. It might do as much harm to
Will this persuade those who want to reduce abortion and the use of birth control? Who think that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Who believe that the Universe is 6,000 years old? I suspect not.
Can Christianity be used for political and social ends?.......2006-11-06
A SECULAR FAITH: WHY CHRISTIANITY FAVORS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE outlines the foundations of a long-standing argument - and the divide between religious and secular America, which has been particularly pointed over the last few decades. Can Christianity be used for political and social ends? A SECULAR FAITH questions this approach and provides documentation of political and religious rivalries over the years.
Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch
Customer Reviews:
Wonderful read for freedom lovers.......2006-10-21
Ms. Rodda has presented an intelligent, well-written expose on the nonsense spewed by the religious right over the internet and in boooks.
"Liars" Too Harsh?.......2006-09-28
"Liars" seems a harsh term to apply to professed Christians and until lately I had--admittedly without paying too much attention--assumed that Christian fundamentalists were engaged in wishful thinking and selective quotations when they complained about activist judges subverting both the Constitution and the clear intent of the Founding Fathers to establish a Christian government. But after reading Ms. Rodda's book I realize that there is something going on far beyond taking words out of context. When she digs out the words and records that clearly demolish the assertion that no "wall of separation" between church and state was ever intended, "liars" does seem the appropriate word. Those of us who fear that the intrusion of "faith based" activities into our government and the flow of subsidies, in the guise of "contracts", to favored churches, is a step toward a theocracy, will find much useful and carefully documented information in "Liars for Jesus".
The truth will set you free.......2006-09-20
Lies for Jesus abound. This is not a new phenomenon, as Ms. Rodda points out in her book, but the lies have greatly proliferated in the age of the Internet. It is sometimes difficult for concerned citizens and concerned Christians to refute the lies which appear to come from authority. Ms. Rodda takes the words of those so-called authorities and shows them for what they are. Her sources are impeccable.
As an Episcopalian, I was quite shocked to learn that the Liars for Jesus have stolen words out of my own Book of Common Prayer to further their questionable agenda.
Those liars do great damage to our religious freedom, a freedom that generations upon generations have fought and died to protect.
Speaking the historical record with truth.......2006-08-19
I am the author of the foreword for Liars for Jesus (The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, vol.1)
For years segments of the religious right have been speaking out against what they have perceived as the historical revisionism of the Bible. This makes their attacks and distortions on the real history of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States very ironic and it would be funny if it wasn't doing so much damage to the religious freedom this country was built upon.
Chris Rodda works to set the record straight and she does it with extensive documentation showing how these distortions are intentional and aimed at leading many well intentioned Christians into false conclusions about the faith and the intentions of our Founders. Reading this book you will be amazed by how far these distortions go ranging from creating false rationizations to carefully cropped quotes ripped from their context to repeating known undocumented and questionable quotes as reliable truth. All these and more are used by the Liars for Jesus to create a psuedo-history of the birth of our nation. Alerted by the evidence of Rodda's detailing of the recorded history you may angered by the fact that this pseudo-history is being marketed to home-schoolers who will never learn the truth and by the fact these lies are making their ways into textbooks for public classrooms.
Average customer rating:
- More than I need to know.
- An unnecessary regressive book.
- Most Outstanding Book on the Topic - MUST READ!!!
- Historical rather than subjective
- Thought-Provoking but Somewhat Disappointing
|
Separation of Church and State
Philip Hamburger
Manufacturer: Harvard University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Reference
| Law Practice
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
U.S.
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
| Authors, A-Z
| Bible Covers
| Bibles
| Books on CD
| Books on Cassette
| Catholicism
| Children's & Teens
| Christian Living
| Church History
| Congregations & Orders
| Education
| Evangelism
| General
| Holidays
| Jesus
| Literature & Fiction
| Ministry & Church Leadership
| Monasticism
| Mormonism
| Music
| Orthodoxy
| Other Denominations & Sects
| Protestantism
| Reference
| Theology
| Worship & Devotion
Church & State
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Reference
| Law Practice
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Religion & Spirituality
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (Critical America)
-
The Separation of Church and State: Writings on a Fundamental Freedom by America's Founders
-
The Rise of Modern Judicial Review
-
The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America
-
The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics
ASIN: 0674013743 |
Book Description
In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment. The detailed evidence assembled here shows that eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American constitutional law only much later.
Hamburger shows that separation became a constitutional freedom largely through fear and prejudice. Jefferson supported separation out of hostility to the Federalist clergy of New England. Nativist Protestants (ranging from nineteenth-century Know Nothings to twentieth-century members of the K.K.K.) adopted the principle of separation to restrict the role of Catholics in public life. Gradually, these Protestants were joined by theologically liberal, anti-Christian secularists, who hoped that separation would limit Christianity and all other distinct religions. Eventually, a wide range of men and women called for separation. Almost all of these Americans feared ecclesiastical authority, particularly that of the Catholic Church, and, in response to their fears, they increasingly perceived religious liberty to require a separation of church from state. American religious liberty was thus redefined and even transformed. In the process, the First Amendment was often used as an instrument of intolerance and discrimination.
Customer Reviews:
More than I need to know........2004-11-29
I only skimmed this exhaustive study of the separation of Church and State. Allow me to express my thoughts on the issue.
Yes, the Constitution does not explicitly specify a separation of Church and State. I think what Jefferson was stating is that the First Amendment effectively does separate Church and State.
The opposite would be a union of Church and State. How would the Church and State unite, by making a law respecting the establishment of religion. Therefore, the First Amendment makes such a union impossible. You cannot have even a partial union.
Simply said, the church and state are "separate" entities.
An unnecessary regressive book........2004-10-03
The first step of any nation moving towards fascism/imperialism is comingling of church and state. This book is an unnecessary and irresponsible junk.
Most Outstanding Book on the Topic - MUST READ!!!.......2004-03-23
Philip Hamburger, John P. Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, has written a meticulously researched account of how the American concept of religious freedom was transformed into the concept of separation of church and state. His central thesis is that this development had very little to do with the constitution itself or even with the late 18th century concept of religious liberty, but was very much a result of fear of ecclesiastical authority and anti-Catholic, or at times anti-Christian prejudice. Hamburger claims, "the federal and state constitutional provisions designed to protect religious liberty have, ironically, come to be understood in terms of an idea that substantially reduces this freedom."
Hamburger begins by tracing the origins of religious freedom in America to the European Continental Anabaptists of the 16th century and the English Baptists of the 17th century who "made arguments about the freedom of conscience." He also discusses the importance of 17th century religious dissenters and Enlightenment philosophers - such as Locke and Milton - and how they "generalized these ideas into conceptions of religious freedom eventually employed by most American dissenters." Hamburger presents the reader with a firm basis in what exactly was meant by religious freedom in colonial and revolutionary America, its relation to the various amendments to state constitutions, and the ideological context for the introduction of the First Amendment to our federal Constitution. He is quite explicit that separation of church and state was not a part of any of these developments and that, on the contrary, separation was rather more of a stigma applied to antiestablishment advocates in order to discredit them. These critics of religious establishment were quick to refute the allegation that they were proponents of separation.
Hamburger makes the argument that the separation of church and state first became an idea during the election of 1800's when the Federalist clergy were using their influence to oppose the election of Jefferson and the Republicans. But separation was used in this context only to oppose the perceived, or real union between ecclesiastical and political authority to undermine the Republicans. A fair amount of detail is given to Jefferson's now famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Hamburger is quite explicit in his claim that the Baptists wanted no part of Jefferson's view concerning a "wall of separation between church and state."
Hamburger then deals with the rise of 'nativist' sentiments among Protestant Americans and the development of a new concept of religious freedom that would eventually become the modern concept of separation of church and state. He claims that the nativist Protestants, fearful of the Catholicism of ever increasing immigrants from Southern Europe, adopted separation as an 'American' ideal. These Protestants believed that the exclusive nature of Catholicism, along with its clear endorsement of the union between church and state, posed a clear danger to American liberty. Hamburger asserts that the nativists united into powerful political organizations in order to further the cause of separation and to undermine the political power of Catholics. Later, during the late 19th century and up until the present, secularists likewise created organizations in order to further a purely secular interpretation of separation, one that was anti-Christian in focus. Hamburger demonstrates that each of these movements was ultimately driven by forces opposed to the free exercise of religion by minority (or majority in the case of the secularists) religious groups. Both the Protestants and the secularists, realizing that separation was not guaranteed by the Constitution, lobbied for an amendment guaranteeing separation. After failing to secure passage of such an amendment they endeavored successfully to have their aims realized by judicial interpretation. He carries through with this theme for the remainder of the book, culminating in the famous Everson case where the Supreme Court fully incorporated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as interpreted by the concept of separation between church and state.
Historical rather than subjective.......2003-10-22
Some would argue that because this book focuses on a topic that can evoke the most deep seated opinions in American jurisprudence that it's not a factual or historical book. I disagree. I think the author handled the topic with great care and objectivity.
I think it's a very critical debate. This book has laid out a historical time line beautifully to draw attention to evolving environments during the U.S. infancy.
Interesting is the discussion of vital US documents from the Declaration of Independence which clearly defers to God in the very first dictation to the Pledge of Alegiance which received a later reference to God out of anxiety.
The most imnportant point made is to debunk the myth that the founding fathers wanted separation of God and state. This concept could not be farther from the truth. The idea of religious freedom did not entail the exclusion of God - just inclusion from whatever religion you worshipped. The idea was to never accord any one religion so much power that the state became a voice of religious extremism.
The debate goes on but this book is so eloquent in its historical interpretation and sets some very important ideas straight. Bravo for some historical truth regardless of which side of the aisle you support.
Thought-Provoking but Somewhat Disappointing.......2003-03-14
The idea of "separation of church and state" today is in much debate as those on the religious right accuse the secularization of America for countless social ills, and recent decisions such as the controversial ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance and subsequent mass public outcry demonstrate exactly why the issues Mr. Hamburger discusses are so important in today's society.
The historical analyses are indeed interesting but do seem somewhat revisionistic in nature, such as the idea that the founding fathers "didn't really intend for strict separation"--what they meant is certainly up for debate, but the changing interpretations of the First Amendment are the very nature of our government, not a "myth" invented later in history.
Overall, the book to me seems somewhat slanted to the idea that the state and church (namely, the Christian church) need not be so cleanly divided as has been recent policy, but it is nonetheless an interesting read.
Book Description
Americans will never stop debating the question of church-state separation. Courts across the country perpetually hear cases on religion's place in our schools, civic government, and society at large. Such debates lead us back to the nation's beginnings and the founders' intent. The Separation of Church and State presents, for the first time, a basic collection of the founders' teachings on this topic. Readers can see for themselves why George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison-together with leading evangelical Christians of the day-believed passionately in church-state separation. This concise primer gets past the rhetoric that surrounds the current debate, placing the founders' vivid writings on religious liberty in historical perspective. Edited and with running commentary by the Reverend Forrest Church, this important collection informs anyone curious about the original blueprint for our country and its government.
Customer Reviews:
Historical Proof that the United States was NOT Founded as a Christian Nation.......2006-10-15
Forrest Church, a Unitarian minister and historian, has pulled together a nice sampling of letters, documents, and legal briefs from the early days of the United States of America (both pre- and post-Constitution) that lays out how most of our founding generations felt about the separation of church and state--they were very much opposed to religion mixing with government and politics. Mr. Church has presented the material in chronological order, and he introduces each piece to highlight its contextual setting and importance. These are more than just the familiar quotes, these pieces in their whole so that the complete context of what is said is there for the examination.
Included are number chapters on some the most recognizable figures important in the separation of church and state debate, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry and James Madison; but, what makes this book more useful are the lesser known public and religious leaders included: Isaac Backus, Caleb Wallace, and George Mason among others.
The separation of church and state was a hot topic open for much debate in our founding days. Most of the original colonies prior to and into the Revolution, had laws on the books that sanctioned a state religion, usually the Anglican Church, and collected taxes that paid the clergy. As King George's yoke was being thrown off during the Revolution, our fledgling country debated itself on the meaning of freedom and liberty, and religious freedom was of utmost importance for our founders.
What makes this book important is that instead of being a thick volume of every conceivable reference to our freedom of and from religion that only an historian would glance at, this book is of the perfect size and length that a layperson can read it and learn for his or herself how important it is that we keep government out of religion and more importantly that we keep religion out of government.
Religious Freedom for All.......2006-07-21
Forrest Church is a Unitarian minister and historian who believes strongly in the American tradition of church state separation. He wrote this book to include actual words taken from several influential individuals from the early days of the United States, illustrating how and why each of these people felt so strongly about the importance of preventing intermingling of church and state.
Many important individuals are mentioned in this book with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison receiving the bulk of the coverage. The reason these two are singled out should be obvious: They were two of the most influential of all in the writing of the U.S. Constitution and their firm stance in favor of religious liberty was unyielding. Of the two men, Jefferson was the most insistent that church and state remain as far apart as possible and it isn't surprising that three of the book's chapters are dedicated to him. Jefferson wrote many letters about this topic and among the nation's many founders, he was the most instrumental at keeping religion and government from joining forces.
Most of the names mentioned in this book are well- known from American history but there are a few surprises. I did not know the names Richard Price or John Caleb until I read this book but I can understand why each was included. Both of these men were high- ranking and very influential religious ministers and they were both convinced that church and state should never be allowed to mix. This is similar to the sentiments expressed by others in this book. But the difference is that these two individuals were ministers and their feelings add credibility to the church/state separation issue. Even though they were both ministers and believed religion was a very important part of society, they also knew religion and politics made dangerous bedfellows. Give one religious group control of governmental laws and all other religious views will not only be silenced, their fundamental freedoms will be lost. These wise men knew that it was better to keep religion out of the laws completely, both for the good of the nation and for the good of churches and religiously- minded individuals.
Probably the main thing I like about this book is the fact that it includes the actual text taken from the various letters, speeches, essays, etc. that each of these men composed relating to church/state separation. The reason I like this is because it puts to rest any claims that the words of these men have been "taken out of context". I have heard many of the small quotations taken from different letters and essays, like Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and most everyone else has heard these famous quotations as well. Those who are opposed to church/state separation often try to say that these pro separation quotes are taken out of context- that the person who spoke or wrote them didn't really mean what he said. But here, author Forrest Church has taken these letters, speeches, and essays and presented them in their entirety (the exception is Washington's farewell address, which is presented in condensed form). This way, the reader can read the entire document and clearly see that there is nothing taken out of context. When, for example, Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists that the U.S. Constitution was explicitly worded in a way that builds a "wall of separation between church and state", he really meant what he said. Reading the entire text of the letters sent back and forth between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists, it is very clear how Jefferson felt about church/state relations.
Besides the actual letters and essays, most of the remainder of this book is old news that the majority of Americans have heard before. We all know how the early founders generally wanted to keep church and state separate (there were some exceptions, but they were outvoted) and how they believed that religion was a very personal decision that should never be interfered with from government. So, other than letting the reader absorb the entire text of these leader's speeches, there really isn't much new in this book. It is really just a history refresher on the problems of church and state and how the U.S. Constitution explicitly calls for separation of the two entities.
One other problem I have with this book is its short length. It is only 160 pages in length and it contains contributions from only about ten or eleven different men. It is also very small in size, with dimensions that are similar to those of a handbook and a length that needs to be about twice as long to make it more effective. It's nice to read these letters in their entirety and it's good to read more proof that America was intended by its founders to have a secular government. But more proof and the inclusion of more articles from other intellectuals of the time would make the book more thorough and more believable.
Overall, I like "The Separation of Church and State" and I think it's a good reference book for those who are in favor of church/state separation and need some ammunition to take on the pro- theocratic people who feel that America would be best served if its Constitution and laws included more specific religious doctrine. It would be a better book if it included quotes from more people and if its length was about double. But it is still a good book to read about the never- ending debate of church/state separation and it makes a good handbook and reference guide for understanding this important subject.
Excellent set of raw data, without much context.......2005-08-07
Mr. Church serves more as editor of source materials in the time of our nation's founding; the bulk of this book is dedicated to presenting the founding fathers' and framers' opinions regarding the eventually established American ideal regarding religious freedom, with very little context added by Mr. Church. His short analyses though are spot-on.
Mr. Church's book presents, in their own words, essays and letters from: Patrick Henry (an enemy of religious freedom and some of our founding ideals), Sam Adams, George Mason, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and others. It also includes the Treaty of Tripoli initiated by Washington's administration but ratified by Adams after being unanimously ratified by the 5th Congress which expressly defines the U.S. as "not being in any sense founded on the Christian religion". The preponderance of evidence collected in this book strongly favors the fact that our framers (not neccesarily our founders like Henry), were enlightened gentleman suspicious of organized religion, but respectful of humanaity's need for faith, and that a relationship between religion and government led to corruption of religion and the derprivation of freedom to citizens and thus the need to separate the two institutions as much as possible.
Being an avid student on this topic, I can state unequivocably that Mr. Church's assessment is accurate relative to the framers' historic desire to secularize government. Mr. Church even presents Madison's post-Presidential memorandum on his admitted hypocrisy regarding his re-establishing national days of prayer during the build-up to the War of 1812 and the fear that elicited.
The book is light in available source material regarding the majority of our leading framer's express desire to seperate church and state in hopes that religion would evolve to a faith in line with scientific fact that believed in a God of universal grace rather than the God described by fundamentalist Christians (then called Trinitarians) and that disestablishing religion was considered necessary in order that Citizens had the "freedom of conscience" to evolve to a more unitarian, if not deistic, faith already shared by our enlightened founders. It is surprising Mr. Church doesn't explore this more fully given that he is a long-time Unitarian Minister with a Ph.D. in Early Church history and editor of "Thomas Jefferson's Bible", suggesting he's completely up to the task.
This is an excellent book to own and I highly recommend it because of its wealth of source data, all in a tiny book, 157 pages in a small footprint. It however is assuredly NOT the definitive book on the relationship between church and state due to its limited scope and incompleteness of source material (.e.g, it's missing Madison vetoing faith-based charities as President along with the failed efforts to extend constitutional power to the gov't through a particular sect's version of God v. gov't deriving power directly from "We the People"), however since I haven't found that perfect book on this subject, one can't be too critical of Mr. Church.
For those of you that have been duped into believing the Dobson/Moore/Robertson propaganda that our government was divinely established to Christianize the world based on fundamentlist beliefs, I would recommend this book as well. The framers quoted here belong to all of us, possessing their words, with very little editorializing by Mr. Church makes this book a very un-controversial book that will hopefully enlighten you and motivate you to further research the veracity of today's religious right propagandists v. what legitimate scholars and historians publish.
While reading this book I suggest thinking about the electability of some of America's greatest generation of statesmen: the words of Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Washington would make them certainly UNELECTABLE in today's world where politicans are forced to kneel down to the dogma of belief in a theistic, vengeful God as defined by a primitive sect of Christians to even have a chance of getting past the primaries. While a deistic Jefferson and Madison or unitarian Adams could be elected then and were able to establish our precious American ideals, these men wouldn't stand a chance today, our loss in my humble opinion.
Then versus Now.......2005-02-17
Forrest Church's handy little book is not only entertaining and informative, but provides verbatim background on our founding fathers' experiences and concerns that led to their insistence on the separation of church and state in founding our nation. Yet while he admirably provides the political and religious context in which their thinking developed, he doesn't provide the scientific and technological context. Consider the following.
In those days most folks accepted the Biblical explanations of the Earth's and Life's beginnings - that the Earth was only a few thousand years old and unchanged (except for the Deluge's scares), and that the animal kingdom and humans were still much as God had created them. Scotland's James Hutton's arguments for Earth's `incalculable' age wouldn't be accepted until forty-years later when Charles Lyell published his own findings in 1830. Charles Darwin took a copy of Lyell's first volume on his famous voyage; it rattled Darwin's religious beliefs and eventually led in 1859 to his seminal "On the Origin of Species." So eventho' several key founding fathers were Deists, given their limited knowledge, the best they were able to do was use words like "nature's God" and "endowed by their Creator." What words might they have used instead, if they'd known then what we know now? Thus verbatim excerpts should be read in context.
Moreover their technology was primitive by today's standards. They didn't have central heating but used fireplaces in many rooms (altho' Ben Franklin's stove-insert was coming into use). They didn't have indoor plumbing but used streams, wells, cisterns, buckets and pitchers, and outhouses and chamber pots. No electric lights or even gaslight, they used candles and oil lamps. They traveled by foot, theirs or horses' and oxen's. No telegraph much less telephone, radio, TV or email. You get the picture. Given their rudimentary technology, what they achieved was not only revolutionary but remarkable.
So pick-up and peruse Church's little book, but put it in context. And if you're interested in an up-to-date scientific look at religion, you might also take a look at Amazon's detail pages on my book, "Concepts: A ProtoTheist Quest for Science-Minded Skeptics."
Book Description
Robert Ingersoll (1833—1899) is one of the great lost figures in United States history, all but forgotten at just the time America needs him most. An outspoken and unapologetic agnostic, fervent champion of the separation of church and state, and tireless advocate of the rights of women and African Americans, he drew enormous audiences in the late nineteenth century with his lectures on “freethought.” His admirers included Mark Twain and Thomas A. Edison, who said Ingersoll had “all the attributes of a perfect man” and went so far as to make an early recording of Ingersoll’s voice.
The publication of What’s God Got to Do with It? will return Robert Ingersoll and his ideas to American political discourse. Edited and with a biographical introduction by Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Page, this new popular collection of Ingersoll’s thought – distilled from the twelve-volume set of his works, his copious letters, and various newspaper interviews – promises to put Ingersoll back where he belongs, in the forefront of independent American thought.
Customer Reviews:
He freed a lot of minds........2007-09-10
So wrote editor Tim Page of Robert G. Ingersoll in the introduction to this short, easy to read book. Ingersoll was one of the intellectual giants of the second half of the 19th century. Sadly and tragically he is now all but forgotten. Known as The Great Agnostic, he spent his life pointing out hypocrisy, railing against injustice and ridiculing superstitious beliefs. As America's foremost practitioner of rational thought, he had the ear of many a President. Yet he remained always modest and never deviated from living a life characterized by kindness, love of humanity and generosity in all things.
Any writing or speech attributable to Robert Ingersoll is worth reading and rereading. And those contained in What's God Got to Do with It? are no exceptions. This collection consists of a number of short works on a wide range of subjects. Like his admiration for Robert Burns and Thomas Paine. The unfairness of tax exempt status for churches. The ugliness of corporeal punishment of children. The futility of prayer and fasting. Women's rights and much, much more.
For those unfamiliar with the humanistic philosophy of Robert Ingersoll, this book would be a fine place to start. America sorely needs another Ingersoll now more than ever. He was one of the greats.
A must read for all Americans who care about the constitution.......2007-01-09
If only more people had the guts to put the defense of the constitution ahead of their personal desires this country would be great forever. Robert Ingersoll is one of the greatest Americans of all time, and his words should be studied in every history class in America. Why aren't they? I will let you figure that out.
Short fast intro to Robert Ingersoll; whom I wish were around today .......2006-02-28
At only 130 pages or so - and short ones at that, this is not some massive tome by a guy who wrote 120 years years ago in flowery 19th century language that will sit on your shelf gathering dust.
You can chew this up in an afternoon - or a few afternoons, if you'd like to savor it more. And it's completely readable prose - no archaic Victorian language here.
In fact, the main thing that makes one realize that this book isn't contemporary writing is the lack of cynicism and snarkiness aimed at the other side; religious zealots that want to insert God into public policy, law, education and so on.
There's no bitterness here, no anger at what has been lost or could be lost in our society if we overthrow rational thought, enlightenment and science over for any 2000 year old magic book.
Ingersoll's points about why God is not mentioned in the US Constitution and why that was such a bold important step in the evolution of society is something that I wish every fundamentalist in America would read and consider.
Tim Page's non-sycophantic intro to Ingersoll is also well-done, pointing out how remarkable he was, even if his writings never produced the single polished gem that might have kept his works known a little more in the early 21st century.
It's a valuable book for any freethinker in America today; cheap, and well put together. Highly recommended.
Book Description
A complete selection of writings from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison focusing specifically on their very forward thinking beliefs in the separation of church and state.
Customer Reviews:
High School Teachers, Assign it to Your Classes! .......2006-10-25
Both Jefferson and Madison were most probably Deists, most certainly hostile to "organized religion" including Christianity. It's rather amazing how our universal public education and our omnipresent "educational" media have left so many of us so much less capable of reasoned scepticism than our scarcely-educated founding fathers.
A renewed look at the thoughts and comments .......2005-03-07
Jefferson And Madison On Separation Of Church And State: Writings On Religion And Secularism is painstakingly compiled and professionally edited by historian, journalist, lecturer and freethinker Lenni Brenner. In today's political climate of red states and blue states, neo-cons and the religious right, "family values" and federally funded "faith-based" initiative, prayer in public schools and moves to constitutionally deny gay marriage, a renewed look at the thoughts and comments by two of our most influential founding fathers on the subject of religion and the state is both timely and needed. The selections comprising this highly recommended reference for politicians, clergy, and non-specialist general readers with a stake in the separation of church and state, draw from correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and other notable figures of early American history including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Law, John Jay, Tom Paine, William Bradford, and the Marquis de Lafayette. Of special note are two appendices in which the timelines of Jefferson and Madison's lives are presented, and a "Scholar's Afterword" which traces the history of religion in American politics from the Civil War to the present day. Urgently recommended reading!
Books:
- Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
- Hands Are Not for Hitting
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- More Than You Know: Finding Financial Wisdom in Unconventional Places
- Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials: Concepts and Methodologies
- The Matter of Desire: A Novel
- Then and Now Bible Maps: With Clear Plastic Overlays of Modern Day Cities and Countries
- Tolkien And Shakespeare: Essays on Shared Themes And Language
- Dubliners
- An Ethics of Place: Radical Ecology, Postmodernity, and Social Theory
- The Investor's Guide to Economic Indicators
- White-Collar Blues: Management Loyalties in an Age of Corporate Restructuring
- The Value Matrix Approach, Creating Wealth and Success by Reaching your Personal and Business Goals
Culture Warrior
Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel - Why Everything You Know is Wrong
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) (Politically Incorrect Guides)
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
