I only made it thru about 150 pages of this before I got too bored and couldnt take anymore. I totally agree with the author's premise..I just couldnt read it for enjoyment.

I wanted to like this book and its premise, but it came across more as two authors who had an axe to grind with the Christian right voting block. The quality of writing and scholarship was particularly poor in the last chapter, “George W. Bush and the Wall of Separation.” The authors had some very interesting points, but sadly these were very poorly presented.

Must read for all Americans concerned with the true religious (or nonreligious) background of our country.

A well written work that lays out how while the Founding Fathers may have been religious they purposely created a system of government that doesn't endorse any religion because the mixture of religion and government interferes with and cheapens both. An engrossing and engaging read.

The authors make a fantastic case for the preservation of our secular government. It's too bad the title is apt to be interpreted at once as abrasive to religious conservatives. In fact, the book is very respectful towards religion.

At the core of the authors' argument is that our constitution came dangerously close to not being ratified over the issue of the separation of church and state. A significant number of delegates (although not quite a majority) thought the constitution should have a clear religious purpose, contain references to Jesus Christ, and require a "religious test" for those seeking public office. Upon losing every single demand, they renounced the document which was ultimately ratified as "godless." (Thus the title reflects not the authors' attitude towards our constitution, but rather the attitude of those delegates who renounced the constitution on the basis that it was not Christian.)

Furthermore, the authors point out that several times in the history of our country, religious zealots have tried to insert God into the constitution...and failed. One such instance occurred following the Civil War, which some believed to be a punishment from God for our failure to give our nation a religious purpose in the Constitution. Good ol' Abraham Lincoln refused to entertain the suggestion at all.

Contrary to the story that modern-day religious conservatives try to sell: that the country was founded by Christians with the intention of forming a Christian government, the authors remind us that although the founders of our country included many religious people and men who respected the role of religion in the community, they purposefully endeavored to create a secular government with no religious purpose.

The other religious-conservative myth busted by the authors is the one claiming that our Christian government has been under the assault of athiest liberals since the 1960s. In fact, the truth is almost the opposite: our secular government has been encroached upon by Christian propaganda since the Cold War (so as to distinguish us from the godless Communists).

Dense and repetitive. While important, too hard to digest.

I enjoyed this book and the exploration of the private versus public opinions that Jefferson held towards religion. The author's write in a way that easily unravels the nuanced view Jefferson held towards religion. I was particularly interested in how the Christian right attacked Jefferson then and how the Christian right operates now. The author's did a good job weaving early American history and modern American history in their "case against religious correctness."

Very good explanation of our four father's decision for a secular govenrment, even as most of them were Christians themselves. Having seen the ill effects of a state religion and having escaped it, America's fathers did not want to repeat the mistake in the new land. Very good fact based argument for secular government. It does not reflect badly on organized religion, as the title of the book may lead you to believe. Only that it stay separate from the state.

Writing in 1996, the authors find that the U.S. Constitution is, indeed, a secular document, but hardly anti-religion. Instead, the framers simply "recognized that social peace and personal happiness are better served by separating religious correctness from public policy.” (p. 177) “The creation of a godless constitution…was an act of confidence in religion. It intended to let religion 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.” (p. 24) The state can as easily threaten religion as it can empower it.

Some basic questions are laid out here in a way that is simultaneously clear and thought provoking. For example:

In the 1620s, the Puritans established a colony where church and state amounted to the same thing. By the 1630s, there was already one prominent and infamous dissenter, Roger Williams. As a dedicated Christian himself, he believed that, in any population, serious Christians would always be in a minority, and he preferred to allow church and state to manage different domains of human life. In the history of the United States, as it turned out, a majority of Christians would generally side with him. (p. 48) (That is an irony, isn’t it — just as most people believe themselves to be "above average," a majority always believes itself to be in the minority of the religiously elect.) A basic problem with the supposed separation of church and state, however, is knowing and agreeing exactly where to draw the line. When do "the religious biases of voters become an illegitimate injection of God into politics"? Politicians come from those very same religious communities; if they are not religious themselves, they must at least be elected by religious people. It isn't obvious at what point, or in what manner, people should temporarily set aside their religiously informed beliefs at the door of politics. (p. 61) One form of this conundrum appears in the book's introduction: Catholics generally oppose abortion, but what does that mean for anti-abortion religious statements made in the context of “a close congressional race where one candidate supports a woman’s right to an abortion and the other does not?” (p. 9) Is that permissible speech?

Reflecting on the 1980s when Southern Baptists were allying with conservative politicians to drum up a political cry about moral decay, the authors raise the point: If the state can ban people whose sexuality supposedly doesn’t conform to some religious tradition (never mind how broad or narrow the religious tradition may be), then the state “can ban Jews and can ban Baptists,” too. In other words, when religious people use religion to politically constrain others, they are establishing a rational basis for their own oppression, too—as there is never only one version of religion. (p. 129) The authors point out another contradiction: Pat Robertson claims that the United States is a Christian nation because its population is 90 percent Christian; he complains about general moral decay throughout society; yet he turns his criticism outward, rather than inward at his own majority demographic who “clearly…are deeply implicated in the [alleged] decline.” In Robertson’s view, “the villain for spiritual decline is the state,” even though the state “never in this country carried the burden for maintaining the spiritual health of the people or for teaching them how to pray.” Why turn to the state now to enforce a moral code? “Roger Williams would have smelled a rat. If religion isn’t making people who profess to believe in it good, neither can the Republican or the Democratic Party.” (p. 156)

This book was not good for my health. It gave me stomach cramps.

A well-written and thoroughly-researched review of the history of the separation of church and state as outlined in the US Constitution.

The arguments here won't change anyone's beliefs, but you'll probably learn something new. Highly recommended.

A necessary reminder of the fact that America was not founded as a theocracy. Sad to say the pandering that must be done to religious voters these days would have made someone like Thomas Jefferson unelectable. Jefferson made his own "version" of the bible by cutting out all the miracles. The one question I have is why did we let someone who hates America found it?