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.

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)

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).

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.

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.

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.

The founders of America were very aware that the biggest threat to true democracy, and especially to the freedom of conscience and beliefs we should all have, is the fact that majorities (Christian, in our case) tend to crush rights for minorities. Exactly what the religious right is attempting in our day, once again. And exactly what we reproach certain Muslim countries with today. It's also fabulous to discover in this book how much wiser our forebears were than we are today.

Jefferson recounts in his Autobiography how, when his proposal for a religious freedom bill was finally passed, someone proposed to add that "Jesus Christ, author of our holy religion" was against "coercion" in beliefs. But the insertion was "rejected by a great majority," Jefferson adds, because they meant to include Jews, Hindus, Muslims and even non-believers in the protection of that law. As further proof of just how well most Americans understood this at the time, Jefferson was elected President - twice - as were his close allies, James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," and James Monroe after him.

Puritan-turned-Baptist, Roger Williams, felt the same, for other reasons in the 1600s. SImply put, mixing politics with religion corrupts religion. Governments claiming to speak for God is arrogant blasphemy. That had been the pretension of all governments for ten centuries in his day, and it had led only to hypocrisy, persecutions and 'terrible sinning' on the part of the churches, and other rulers.

Even the question of whether God exists should not be before our courts. They are not competent to judge. It is the most ridiculous pretension of all. That's why it's called "faith." You cannot legislate faith, whatever lip-service you force on people. Legislating it, as all Christianity did for a thousand years, only creates atheists. Just look at so many popes, like the Borgias. Does anyone think for a second they believed in God? Then look at our politicians who will say anything for a vote - who wave the Bible without the slightest shred of "Christian" charity for "the poor and under-trodden" in their actions. We used to be smarter than that as a country. At least, the majority were.

The authors of this book say, at one point, that if we are ever to add another amendment to the Constitution regarding religion, as so many have tried, and still wish to, it should say that any elected official who claims to speak for God should be immediately impeached. And they are right. That is what the Enlightenment era had finally understood, and legislated. And obviously, those intelligent basic principles are not being clearly taught anymore.

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?

“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.

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

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.

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.