The Godless Constitution – A Moral Defense of the Secular State
The Godless Constitution A Moral Defense of the Secular State
"A timely, well-written and scholarly polemic for the separation of church and state."–Bernard Crick, The New Statesman The Godless Constitution is a ringing rebuke to the religious right's attempts, fueled by misguided and inaccurate interpretations of American history, to dismantle the wall between church and state erected by the country's founders. The authors, both distinguished scholars, revisit the historical roots of American religious freedom, paying particular attention to such figures as John Locke, Roger Williams, and especially Thomas Jefferson, and examine the controversies, up to the present day, over the proper place of religion in our political life. With a new chapter that explores the role of religion in the public life of George W. Bush's America, The Godless Constitution offers a bracing return to the first principles of American governance. .
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars excellent intro to the Constitution and religion
This updated edition is an excellent introduction to and summary of
Constitution-religion and 'church-state'issues. There are "no footnotes"
- by the authors' stated design. "Therefore no sources. Just a matter
of opinion . . ." – Not hardly! The authors' work is deeply grounded
in primary sources and reputable secondary studies. One seeking depth
in these issues will move on to other scholarly secondary sources and
to primary sources. But one will want to avoid 'Original Intent' which, in addition to its extravagant footnotes, contains numerous and demonstrable historical confusions, falsehoods, and fallacious inferences.
1 Star No Academic or Historical Sources Support The Findings of This Book…
… and the author's admit this in the Notes page:
"…we have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes"
They give no historical sources because there are none; they only source other modern non-academic writings. They totally ignore the documented writings of all of the Signers of the Constitution and simply pretend they don't exist.
There are reasonable historical debates that can be made on this subject, but this book is a sham. It is a shame that such a book can even be published by people who claim to support academic study in our country.
No one should read this book because it simply is not true and does not support any legitimate discussion or debate on this issue. It is a fraud and people on either-side of this debate should not support this kind of approach to important matters.
SCF
1 Star No footnotes
No footnotes. Therefore no sources. Just a matter of opinion because the writers have a Ph. D. Let see something with sources from Early American historical documents. Say like the book "Original Intent" which is full of footnotes.
5 Stars Abrasive Title for a Moderate, Thoughtful Book
An ill-chosen title, also, since it probably decreases the book's chances of being read by its proper audience. The subtitle – A Moral Defense of the Secular State – is far more suitable. Authors Kramnick and Moore have explicitly written their 'defense' as a respectful appeal to the Christian communities of America, Protestant and Catholic both, to re-evaluate the history of "church-state" separation in the USA, and to re-consider the paramount vale of that concept to the integrity of both the government and their own religious faiths.
Kramnick and Moore begin their 'moral defense' with a close examination of the historical/cultural context in which the Constitution was written. According to their ample evidence, it was not an oversight that no mention of God or Christ was made in the Constitution. Rather, it was the explicit intention of the chief authors – Madison and, by proxy, Jefferson – to create a secular government. Revisionist and politically-motivated polemicists in recent years have attempted to assert that the Founding Fathers were not at all committed to a "wall of separation" but rather just assumed that America was and forever would be an explicitly Christian nation. The authors write: "It is not true that the founders designed a Christian commonwealth, which was then eroded by secular humanists and liberals; the reverse is true. The framers erected a godless federal constitutional structure, which was then undermined as God entered the first U.S. currency in 1863, then the federal mail service in 1912, and finally the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954."
"The reverse is true…" Some of the best evidence for the authors' depiction of the framing of the Constitution comes from the debates in print that preceded the ratification of that Constitution in the various states. The absence of any mention of God was immediately noted and criticized widely, both in the newspapers and from the pulpit. In fact, the "godlessness" of the proposed government was one of the chief arguments of anti-federalists – opponents of ratification – such as Patrick Henry, the inveterate enemy and rival of Thomas Jefferson. Curiously from our 2008 viewpoint, the strongest popular support for this secular state-to-be came from Baptists and Catholics, two communities that realized that they had much to gain from a government not committed to the interests of the established Congregational and Episcopalian squirarchies. The Constitution's first vivid statement of church/state separation was not the First Amendment; it was already embodied in the clause which declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That clause was recognized, the authors show, as a formula already existent in the constitution of Virginia, clearly with the objective of protecting the government from the dominance of any one religious community. The First Amendment, seen in this context, had the objective of protecting any variety of religious conviction – including disbelief – from the government. It was the protection of the dissident conscience from government in the hands of any possible religious orthodoxy that primarily appealed to the sincerest Christians of the founding generation.
Moore and Kramnick continue to make their case by examining the thought and actions of Roger Williams and other religious dissidents of the colonial era. In chapter Four, they examine the background of American secularism in "the English roots" of church/state separation, considering the abuses in England which the Americans sought to escape as well as the libertarian philosophy of John Locke and others whose influence was paramount among American intellectuals. Chapter Five turns to the thought of Thomas Jefferson, the one founding father most often revered by both sides of any historical issue. Whatever phrases from Jefferson's pen might be cited, it's clear from his actions – his battle to eliminate religious tests and establishment from the Virginia constitution, his role in the writing of the First Amendment, and his foundation of the University of Virginia as the first secular educational institution in American history – that Jeffersom meant exactly what he said when he spoke of the necessity of "a wall of separation" between religion and government.
The debate and the resistance to a secular government didn't end with the passage of the Bill of Rights. Kramnick and Moore recount the many explicit efforts of some sincere religious folk – Timothy Dwight, the president of Yale, for instance – to amend the Constitution and/or to achieve some recognition of religious rule in such things as Sunday mail delivery. In each generation of American history, in fact, there were spokesmen for "putting God in the government" and in many cases those same people were the spokesmen for important humanitarian causes – abolition, temperance, universal suffrage, welfare programs, child-labor laws, etc. Moore and Kramnick, in fact, celebrate the vigorous social consciences of the religious reformers, and acknowledge the basic point that religious faith has always and will always provide a major component of what makes a nation strong and fair. However, as the authors argue, the politicization of religion – in previous eras and especially at present – is destructive and dangerous. By breaching the wall of separation politically, by attempting to impose a kind of religious political correctness, effectively a "test of faith" as a qualification for full citizenship, both government and religion run the risk of being corrupted.
Chapters 1-8 of this book appeared as a title in 1996. One could easily wish that teh book had been more widely read then. Chapter nine is an addition in the second edition, reflecting on the administration of George W Bush. The tone of this chapter is patently less optimistic; the authors are far from happy with the course of Bush's political career, and they are justifiably alarmed for the future. Unfortunately, the people to whom they want and need to address their respectful arguments are very unlikely ever to read them, let alone give them the kind of conscientious consideration they deserve.
1 Star If you believe this then I have some oceanfront land in Arizona….
I admit the subject matter (the USA founded as a Christian nation) is polarizing, yet it even more difficult to be objective when the authors admit they have no footnotes, i.e. no documention for their opinions. In other words, it is open season to distort, twist or even make stuff up, and not have to worry about the truth of their statements. (If I'd have written a paper for my Comp 101 class with no footnotes, I'd get an 'F' or maybe even a zero). So, why no documentation? Is it because the authors feel they've reached a level where their enlightened, philosophical views are beyond question or are above the scrutiny of good journalism …were they just lazy? Whatever. Even the title of the book has an oxy-moron which belies the credibility of their basic argument… a "moral" defense of the "secular" state… do you see it? If you do, then you most likely already know the book is a waste of time.. If you do not, then I strongly caution you to be wary of the con artists of the new milennium.
Related posts:
- Islam and the Secular State – Negotiating the Future of Shari
- Islam and the Secular State – Negotiating the Future of Shari a
- Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution and Religion
- Global Rebellion Religious Challenges to the Secular State from Christian Militias to al Qaeda Comparative Studies in Religion and Society
- PRESS RELEASE: Sectarian Invocations At N.C. County Board Meetings Violate Constitution, Federal Magistrate Says
- Scaling the Secular City A Defense of Christianity
- Separation of Church and State – What the Founders Meant
- Our Endangered Values – Americas Moral Crisis
- Our Endangered Values – America's Moral Crisis
- Godless – The Church of Liberalism
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Leave a Reply
Here in the States, a growing number of people are no longer affiliated with any religion. Yet, there are some Christian groups who continue to insist on blurring the lines of separation between church and state. For the non-churchgoers and freethinkers worldwide, this site features news, reviews and editorials on just about anything regarding religion. Your opinion is always welcome here, either as a columnist or commenter. Hey, this is not church -- you are allowed to speak your mind and think for yourself!
A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: While comments are welcomed and get the Do Follow option, they are strictly monitored. That means comments must be on topic and add to the discussion. Submissions from multiple names having the same IP, troll comments, keyphrase users and the like will be deleted. Please see our policies page for more information.
 |
 |
Main Feed | Comments Feed |
|
 |
 |