The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness

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."

Published in 1996 - I would love to see a revised, updated edition of this book as the conflicts and politicization of religion has increased to a fever pitch in this country. The attacks and misuse of religion in the past 4 years would certainly bring the condemnation of Jefferson and the other founding fathers - trying to dominate and impose a religious test (the myth of the muslim President as a "threat" to the country and a dis-qualification) and wide-spread criticism of law and policy - not on any objective, rational basis, but rather solely on it being an invitation to incur the wrath of an almighty. The debate on healthcare insurance somehow infringes upon on religious liberty of private business (including church run businesses) not only ignores the fact that the private religious views can never trump law, but that the beliefs of the business owner or entity, cannot be trumped (setting a private religious law higher than public law) but that the beliefs of the owner are allowed to trump the private beliefs of their own employees. The damaging effects of religion and its mixture with the state was exactly why there is not a single mention of god in the Constitution. Since they do not have truth on their side, they attempt to re-define the founding fathers very clear intentions - and this they do with a passion - consider the recently recalled disgraceful book (with the very ironic title of Jefferson's Lies) on Jefferson, trying to make the case that he did not want a separation of church and state. As Jefferson and others feared, allowing a church or sect to somehow "establish" itself would lead to the demise of the state, yet this seems to be the burning cause for too many of our fellow citizens.

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.

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.

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.

Very well-formed ideas. The authors are very correct when they say that a true merging of the public and the religious is always dangerous. While each may rightly effect the other, the intentional introduction of the religious into public life is clearly something to be avoided. I further agree with the authors theory that one can be religious and believe in the secular nature of our government, but putting this theory into practice may prove difficult.

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.

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