The complete lack of citations, footnotes or otherwise, stresses the fact that this book is a poorly researched and often inaccurate book.
While the author's intent may be good, this book fails to deliver on any sort of academic or casual level.
Unfortunately, there is little to recommend.

I read The Godless Constitution after The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America truly raised my interest in the subject. This was a fascinating and enlightening read. The Right to Be Wrong was very much influenced by this book (but opposite to its intention). However, one has to read both side of a contentious debate to get "the full picture", and that's precisely what The Godless Constitution accomplishes.

Ever wondered the United States, with no official religion, is generally so much more religious than countries that endorse a particular faith, such as the Church of England? Would you be surprised to know that prominent rabbis and christian leaders are members of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? This book carefully illustrates why separation of chuch and state should be at least as important to the christian as it is to the atheist.

The founding fathers not only intentionally left religion out of the Constitution, they removed religious tests as a prerequisite for holding office. It also turns out that the separation of church and state benefits religion because it removes the corrupting influence of government. What a concept.

Historical account of the religious beliefs of America's founding fathers. Very convincing and persuasive. Very logical without a lot of irrational idealogy.

Every American concerned about the religious right's never ending attack on the constitution by trying to re-write history (I'm looking at you David Barton) needs to read this book. It completely destroys the claims that the founders of the United States had any intention of creating a christian nation, and proves that the first amendment really means what it says as far as separating church and state. I found it fascinating that the constitution was under attack by the church as an "atheist" document before the ink was even dry. Also, it turns out that baptists were initially supporters of the separation of church and state (before they had sufficient numbers to try and push their misguided morals into government).

My only nit to pick is that the book really needed endnotes. The authors state that because the book is intended for a general audience and that the material cited is familiar to historians and political scientists, that they have foregone including footnotes. However, for those of us (in the general audience) who are not historians and political scientists, endnotes would have been very useful in further study. Admittedly, complete endnotes would probably add 100 pages to the book, but they could have easily been provided via a web site.

Very good case made for the fact of our founders creating a secular state. Some were religious; some were not but they agreed that the government had no business in religion and vice-versa.

If you follow politics you may have heard the claims that the Constitution is modeled on the Bible in some fashion and that we were always intended as a Christian nation. As this book shows, not so.
The Constitution was, at the time it was drafted, seen as a secular, almost anti-religious document by many people. No religious test for federal office. No references to God or Christianity. Claiming government derived from the people, not from God almighty. Government would do its thing, which did not include laying down the rules of any sect or creed as federal law.
I was aware of much of this from other reading but this book still does a good job showing it to be the case. It then discusses the practical questions such as where we draw the line between a leader whose decisions are influenced by their faith and one who wants to impose their faith on others.

a compact assembly of founding father facts and 18th and 19th century US history. who doesn't like that?

This book definitely suffers from fact that it was penned jointly by two authors. Co-written books naturally have a hard time establishing an engaging literary style, if for no other reason than that two people are not likely to share a uniform sense of humor or writerly voice. The reading is often dry and, despite its svelte build, the whole book is kind of a slog.

Also, the authors are frustratingly deferential to faith and faith-based arguments. Having very recently read Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, both of whom are strident in calling for new enlightenment in this country, I couldn't help but feel the authors pulled their punches. But then again, it's hard to be a radical when you're a sitting professor at Cornell, and harder still if your co-writer has to sign on to everything you say.

While the background on the secular philosophies of the founding fathers was interesting, that story has been told a thousand times and couldn't save The Godless Constitutions from mediocrity.

My favourite line from this book is: "Who are Baptists anyway?"

Really, who ARE they?!

This book labels itself a polemic, so it's not surprising that it comes off as a little sound-bitey and shallow. But it doesn't fall over the edge into inanity, and it offers a pretty succinct answer to arguments that the founding generation intended America as a Christian commonwealth by tracing the fight to keep God out of the language of the Constitution from 1787 through the 19th century. I'm pretty sure the authors' method of arguing this would convince exactly no one who has fixed their mind on an opposite point of view. But polemics aren't really for changing minds, are they? I feel more set in my ways and better equipped to articulate them after reading this book, so in that sense it succeeded admirably.