The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State

I read this my Sr. year as a part of an American Lit. /Government course. Kramnick attacks the assumption that our country was founded on Religious principles. A good read for apologetic's sake, rather stale elsewise.

This was a generalized history on the Constitution; and an explanation as to what exactly the Framers' intent was, when creating a wall of separation between church and state. The authors make a compelling-enough argument, and actually truly seem to believe that a separation between church and state is good for both sides.

Jefferson, of course, looms large in their arguments. His political career is used as a model by which many other politicians are judged; and the authors put a lot of weight into his decisions regarding religion during his term as president.

Overall, this is a pretty decent read. Pick it up if you run into it at the library, or a used book store.

“It is not legitimate for political leaders to mobilize religion in order to invest their argument about moral consequences with certainty, to imagine that their understanding of God’s will should be shared by everyone.” That’s it, that’s the review.

A bit drab stylistically, but the content is the gem here. Explains in great depth why god is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and draws a clear line from the Enlightenment, to John Locke, through Roger Williams, and straight to Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Framers. A well balanced examination that explains why the wall of separation benefits not only the state, but also the millions of America's faithful.

From the title and the source (Sonlight Curriculum) I fully expected this to be an attack on politcal types who abuse the constitution. I was wrong. It was an interesting essay on why the founding fathers left god out of the constitution and why trying to put god back into it is dangerous. It made some things clear to me that I've felt for a long time, but not been able to articulate, such as that our law is not really based on the 10 commandments, which, as the authors say, becomes clear if one sits down and reads through them. Our law has to do with things other than moral behaviour. And they point out that godless Europe's government does far better with taking care of its citizens than our allegedly religiously based one does. They don't make a case to get rid of religion. They just make a good case for why religion and government should be kept apart.

You've probably heard various people claim that America was founded as a "Christian nation" and that it still holds this title. Most people accept that statement as unquestionably true, and even those who recognize the historical error tend not to regard it as seriously as they should. This book is about how the framers of the Constitution explicitly wanted to ensure that American never became a Christian nation, or a nation of any religion, for that matter. Using airtight historical evidence and sound, steady reasoning, the authors make a convincing case that a) America was specifically and deliberately founded as a secular state, b) the religious right has misinterpreted and warped that intention and tried to rewrite history in the process, and c) Americans should recognize this discrepancy and stop letting politicians prostitute their religious beliefs for votes. The authors' main argument is that when religion and politics become commingled, the end result is nothing but division and dispute, and no one is served but the politicians who accrue votes by pandering to religious believers. The mixing of religion and politics, they argue, makes both religion and politics ugly.

This book is a triumphant support of the separation of church and state, but the authors' tone is never arrogant or strident. Everything they say, they can back up with evidence and logic, and while they do argue vehemently in favor of keeping religion out of politics and politics out of religion, they are respectful of religious believers throughout the entire book. They are very generous and fair about acknowledging the errors and blind spots of liberals and nonbelievers too, so the book never comes across as unfairly biased.

Anyone who cares at all about the current direction of politics or who has an interest in secularism will really enjoy this book. And even if you're one of those people who sees no problem mingling religion and government, you won't feel attacked if you read this book. But hopefully it will change your mind.

It is axiomatic to argue the Founding Fathers had enormous respect for religion, believed firmly that human rights originated from a divine being, and accepted that democracy would benefit from a moral citizenry who believed in God. So why does the Constitution make no mention of a divine being?

Most states (with the notable exception of New York and Virginia) had religious tests for public office that were specifically designed to keep out Quakers and especially the dreaded Papists (Quakers were anathema for their pacifist and antislavery views). One anti-Constitution article widely distributed in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts worried that the proscription of religious tests for office in the new Constitution would cause the government to be overrun with "1st. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defense - 2dly. Mohometans, who ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity - 3dly. Deists [Most of the Founding Fathers were in fact Deists, a non-doctrinaire group that rejected a supernatural, anthropomorphic God who intervened in human events, believing instead that God was a supreme intelligence who set things in motion to operate forever according to natural, rational and scientific laws.:] abominable wretches - 4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when sent on horseback will ride to the devil - 6thly. Jews, etc. etc. [sic:]."

There is a tradition the authors refer to as "religious correctness," which takes the position that America is a religious, especially Christian, nation and there is one correct religious persuasion that must exclude all others. The religious right has gone to great extremes to prove the Constitution was created to perpetuate "a Christian
Order," (James Dobson) and they would like to see a country "once again governed by Christians" (Ralph Reed) - I don't know what he considers Carter, Bush and Reagan.

Kramnick and Moore state flatly and demonstrate convincingly that this viewpoint is wrong. The Founding Fathers wanted to disassociate a person's religious convictions from the value of his political opinion. The Founding Fathers thinking originated from several traditions: the religious thought of Roger Williams, the Baptists of that era, and the English liberal tradition "that put at the center of its political philosophy individuals free of government, enjoying property and thinking and praying as they wished."

Roger tWilliams' secular approach to government was paradoxically religious in nature. Because "he believed that the number of true Christians would always be a small proportion of the population in any society, he rejected the concept of a nation under God. For England or for the Massachusetts Bay colony to make a claim that it was a Christian polity, a civil government party to a divine contract, was arrogant blasphemy. "

The authors suggest that the writers of the Constitution adopted this secular stance to protect religion from government, and to prevent the trivialization that "religious correctness" standards would cause. They wanted religion to do "what it did best, to preserve the civil morality necessary to democracy, without laying upon it the burdens of being tied to the fortunes of this or that political faction."

The Godless Constitution was an interesting read as it explained a lot about the mindset of the self-righteous and why we must be vigilant in curtailing the actions due to the self-righteous being a detriment to our freedom.