Blasphemy How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence
In Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence, author Alan Dershowitz proves that no relation exists between the Declaration of Independence's "Creator and "Nature's God," on the one hand, and the Judeo-Christian God of the Old and New Testaments, on the other hand. Learn about the religious right's goal to Christianize America by using the Declaration of Independence and arguing that this document proves that the United States was founded on Biblical law. Understand everything from the argument to the documentation that Dershowitz uses to disprove this historical distortion.
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars Just in time for Independence Day!
For the past few decades, the Religious Right has been trying to weaken, if not eradicate, the wall of separation between church and state. In their attacks, it is common for them to argue that the U.S. is a "Christian nation," "founded on Judeo-Christian morality," etc.; and they frequently buttress their arguments by citing the references in the Declaration of Independence to "Nature's God" and "Creator." Dershowitz shows that those arguments, including the references to the DOI, are badly misguided.
In the first two chapters, Dershowitz shows that both the historical context of the DOI and the numerous statements of some of the most influential figures of the period make it clear that organized Christianity was not a significant, positive influence on the DOI. He also shows that the references in the DOI to "Nature's God" and "Creator" meant something radically different in the 1700s from what the naive literalists in the Religious Right claim. Obviously, those present serious problems for the Religious Right's arguments.
The third chapter discusses the "natural law" concepts that are so prominent in the DOI. This was my favorite part of the book. First, natural law is not dependent on revelation, so that's a problem for the Religious Right right there. Second, it's not clear that natural law is a useful, much less valid, analytical concept to begin with. Dershowitz's discussion of the analytical problems in natural law arguments was very interesting.
The book is very short, but it provides a wealth of historical detail and analysis, and in a very readable style. I recommend it highly.
4 Stars A Spirited Defense of Our Nation's Secular Underpinnings
Alan Dershowitz has written a marvelous evisceration of the shrill claims of so-called Christian Dominionists who want to revise history and turn the United States into a Protestant Theocracy. He accomplishes this goal by examining the text of the Declaration of Independence, which the Religious Right has recently turned to in the hopes of finding support for their unhistorical view of the early United States. Dershowitz painstakingly examines Thomas Jefferson's (He was, after all, the drafter of the Declaration) deist faith and cynicism towards organized religion and clearly explains to the reader that the "God" of the Declaration is not Yahweh but rather the watchmaker God of the Enlightenment deists.
Indeed, much of this book focuses of Jefferson's deist beliefs, though Dershowitz also examines the various beliefs of the other Founding Fathers (though none of them are discussed at the same length as Jefferson). He wryly notes that Jefferson himself, rather than being a fearsome Christian lion who intended to found a nation under Jesus, was derided as an atheist and heretic in his own time and would almost certainly fail any political litmus test that the modern political Right might administer to him. He further notes that many of the historical passages that are sometimes quoted to back up Dominionist claims are often presented woefully out of context and, indeed, sometimes cynically twisted in order to present a meaning wholly opposite of their original intent.
Later on in the book Dershowitz examines modern strategies that the Dominionists use to try and foist their propaganda on the public, including the dissemination of patently inaccurate curriculum materials in public schools. He further quotes some of the boldest of modern Dominionists, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, to lay bare their own narrow interpretation of "religious freedom" – an interpretation under which all citizens are free to worship under any form of Protestant Christianity they choose.
Throughout the entire work Dershowitz attempts to maintain a delicate balance of standing firmly against the Dominionist revisers of history while not presenting the Founding Fathers as fearsome atheists. Indeed, he notes that Jefferson and many of the other Founders were profoundly spiritual men, and that Jefferson's vision of a wall of separation between church and state was originally intended to also protect the sanctity of religion from the machinations of politicians. Indeed, one should come away from this book with the understanding that the Founders didn't see matters of spirituality and conscience as trifling or trivial, but rather that they saw them as so intensely important on a personal level that they sought to secure and defend the right to freedom of conscience for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation. Part of that defense meant separating religion from the coercive power of the state, for their experience with the Church of England left them keenly aware that any country with an officially established church is neither well-equipped nor well-disposed to protect the rights of members of other faiths.
If this book leaves anything to be desired, it is that the author occasionally relies too much on quotations. I suppose he does so for the sake of repeating key ideals, but it is sometimes a bit distracting. For example, he repeatedly notes Jefferson's contention that the Bible was written by "ignorant, unlettered men". Now, this is an important statement regarding Jefferson's sentiments on the subject, but it is repeated, in quotations, at least half a dozen times. I'm all for reinforcing the key points of one's argument, but looking down at a page an catching sight of a veritable sea of quotation marks virtually guarantees a jagged read. Nonetheless, this book is of great value to anyone seeking a clearer understanding of our Founder's views on religion and the state. I recommend reading this book along the also excellent work by Kramnick and Moore entitled The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State
5 Stars Religious Legal Extremist
Religious right – Legal Right. Religious extremist – Legal extremist. I'm not sure of a significant quantitative difference in the layers of self-delusion. It's difficult to take anything seriously from the man who uses the theory of causality to argue the death of a Palestinian after being shaken(?) by an Israeli is not cause and effect but just a sequence of unrelated events. I guess it makes sense that Pinker, who, with all his scientific reasoning and agrees with Dershowitz's analysis on the shaking-death events, would also recommend this book.
4 Stars Though he misses the forest for the trees, this is still a fascinating nature walk
Alan Dershowitz, celebrity lawyer and frequent cable news talking head, has in "Blasphemy" used his estimable legal skills to create a necessary answer to the Christian right (the so-called "religious right" in this country is almost entirely Christian, and Protestant at that), who have lately taken to claiming one of the nation's founding documents to be implicitly, if not overtly, Christian in nature. This, of course, is the legal front of their overall "wedge" strategy to finally make fundamentalism the law of the land. Needless to say, this would endanger the liberties (and maybe even the lives) of the vast majority of Americans, no matter their belief system, or lack thereof. Although in length (less than 200 pages) and often in tone, Mr. Dershowitz clearly intended this book as a broadside, he also wants to ask broader legal questions and examine the "morality" that should be inherent in a secular nation. In the end, he may be misinterpreting the overall strategy of his opponents, but this is still a worthwhile and thought-provoking read.
In the first section, he examines the history and creation of the Declaration of Independence, gathering in impressive yet concise detail, the evidence that the Founding Fathers, in particular Thomas Jefferson, clearly intended a radical break from British law, to the extent that America would refuse to establish itself as Church-based. They were Deists, who while perhaps believing in some sort of deity, didn't accept the Christian version at all. The wording of the Declaration, with its references to a "Creator" or "Nature's God," was in fact a way to avoid using specifically Christian iconography. This was eventually crystalized in the Constitution, which acknowleged no divine authority at all.
In the second section, Dershowitz examines the words and actions of the Christian right itself. In his view, they intend to re-establish America as a kind of democratic theocracy, where minority faiths are technically allowed, but effectively voiceless. Unfortunately, he focuses too much on Alan Keyes, who although a persistent advocate of faith-based government, is essentially not a major threat in terms of power or influece. Important players in the movement, such as James Dobson, Tim LaHaye and Paul Weyrich are barely even mentioned, much less examined. Although Mr. Dershowitz has a clear grasp of many of their legal arguments, this oversight is a troubling harbinger of his overall understanding of the movement itself (for a more comprehensive journalistic approach, read Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism).
It's in the final section of the book where Mr. Dershowitz attempts to contribute his own ideas to the debate. He looks at the language of the Declaration from a legal standpoint and asks critical questions about phrases like "Nature's God" and "Natural," as opposed to "Positive" law. He even goes so far as to critcize the founders themselves for not realizing the full implications of their words. He also goes back to a newspaper column he wrote in 1984 called "The Ten Commandments for Politicians," which laid out some suggestions for how candidates should address issues of faith. Many of these seem eerily prescient, considering the tone of the current campaign for president: "Do not publicly proclaim your religious devotion, affiliation or practices, or attack those of your opponents;" "Do not surround your political campaign with religious trappings or symbols;" "Do not seek the support of religious leaders who impose religious obligations on members of their faith to support or oppose particular candidates." Here, Dershowitz could be talking to or about anyone from Barack Obama to John McCain; Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani.
The problem I have with the book is that for all his legal acumen, Dershowitz finally fails to realize that the Christian Right doesn't actually care about the Declaration; they certainly have no interest in the "godless" Constitution. They just want to re-format their ideas to make them stand in court, whether they be local districts to possibly the Supreme Court itself (Justice Scalia can certainly be counted as one of their friends, even if he is Catholic). Frankly, it's almost comforting that they wish to stage only a legal coup, as opposed to something more physically demonstrative. Dershowitz's comeback, therefore, is designed with the courts in mind. Any counter-tactic he can offer will only be legal as well. The root question of how a pluralistic democracy can deal with anti-democratic fundamentalist ideologies is somewhat foreign to him, and his book suffers as a result. Nevertheless, this is still worth your time, given its size and considered within its scope.
1 Star Typical
How shocking, another liberal attacking Christianity. He is Jewish people of COURSE he is going to attack Jesus. This book and some of these reviews show how far our once wonderful country has drifted away from the morals it was found on and how someone like Obama could get elected president. Not only would the founding fathers be ashamed but even our Great-Grandparents would be. The Liberals are hoping to turn this country into San Fransico/Berkeley/Boulder, etc. God help us when/if that happens. I don;t think it ever will because there are still too many normal, moral people out there that love this country and want it back the way it was before Clinton and his cronies brought in PC, class warfare, race baiting, etc. Now we have an even worse person (racist, socialist, anti American-just read his first book Libs) going to be president so who knows what the Far Left is going to try and do to us.
Idiots like this guy don't help. The Anti Christ "Lawyers" Union doesn't either. all they do is attack moral people and ideas and stick up for the Far Lefts immorality. We are in for a world of hut like this country has never seen people. Let's just hope in 4 years our country will still be standing and at least be somewhat recognizable.
All you anti-God people I guess will just have to sit back and see what happens later. I pity you and would love to see your faces when you realize your mistake.
Check out the UNEXPLAINABLE STORE - Lots of freebies, bonuses and more. -
The link opens in a new window so you can satisfy your curiosity and return to this page!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
