I read this several years ago and decided it was worth a re-read. And it was. I admire the wisdom of our founding fathers even more when they opted to keep religion and government separate. Many of them were men of faith, but not the traditional faith that the religious right claim for them.

I did despair some in reading this. Where are the thoughtful educated leaders we need today? Where are those whose faith is important to them but not used as a tool to gain votes?

Public religion--the calling upon God--from Presidents such as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan--is something that Meacham appreciates. But addressing specific issues of our day--gay rights, abortion, bio-ethics, he says were all of course beyond anything the founding fathers thought of. They "hoped to construct a republic that would withstand the vicissitudes of time and chance and would, with amendment, endure."

Talking about religion can get you trouble. Talking about Politics can also get you in trouble. Talking about both of them at the same time can get you killed.

Tackling a difficult subject like the place of religion in the United States is problematic at best and dangerous at worse. And yet, Jon Meacham is able to approach the subject with a critical, yet humble method. American Gospel represents Meacham's attempt to document almost 250 years of American religious history and is a laudable attempt.

Meacham focuses on the concept of 'American Public Religion' as a means to assess the history of the country. He attempts not to take sides, but approaches the question from the middle ground. That is to say that Meacham does not believe the United States was founded as a Christian nation, but at the same time, believes that religion has a very definite place in American life.

Meacham's subtitle is a little deceiving because the book actually extends beyond the Founding Period and covers the entire history of the American Republic. As a result, the book ends in a call for clarity in the current debate over the place of religion in American politics.

Meacham's writing is smooth and fast paced. He skips over generations within paragraphs and while that may throw the reader, the book overall is very simple to understand.

I heartily recommend this book for pastors, chaplains, politicians, and everybody who wants to understand the question of religion in American better.

American Gospel is a novel written by Jon Meacham. It is based upon how religion and the belief of God was a matter of choice for Americans. The Founders instituted church and state together and Meacham believed that since it worked back then, it will work today. For the majority of the book he used examples from the presidents’ views. From the building blocks of this nation the founding fathers believed that the belief in God was a personal choice. In an effort to prove that religion was very important Meacham gave many examples of how religion had helped this country in its time of need. He examines various wars, the Great Depression, World War 2, private/public religion, and how the presidents have used religion during each of their terms. Meacham uses the presidents’ credibility to prove his points throughout his book.
tMeacham organizes his book in a way where he outlines one topic, then gives a quote, and moves onto the next subject. He does not analyze the quotes which makes it difficult for readers to understand why he incorporated the quotes at all. Occasionally, the quotes help get the point across but in terms of understanding why he puts them there are still a mystery. Meacham writes historical vignettes in each of his chapters but each one ties back to religion. I understand needing to have stories to help prove your point but when they do not correlate its hard to follow. In Meacham's introduction he talked about how religion may be a necessary evil. Meacham said, “ Taken all in all, I think history teaches that the benefits of faith in God have outweighed the costs” (31). This topic is very interesting but then after examining it for a little he moves onto another vignette about John Quincy Adam’s death. It is not until the last chapter that Meacham finally analyzes a quote. Meacham quotes, “People may agree in abhorring an injustice, for instance, yet sincerely disagree as to what practical approach will achieve justice. Religious groups are entailed as others to their opinion in such cases” (244). Meacham now analyzed the quotes and gives his opinion. He said, “Let religious speak but encourage them not to shout; let them argue, but encourage them not to brawl” (244). He is now letting us see how he views this topic and from his opinion we can start to form our own opinions.
tMeacham believes that we should look to the Founding Fathers as examples to be able to unify the nation as it was before. I understand looking at history to look at the mistakes we have made and to make sure we do not do them again, but we can use history as a guideline not permanent for today's society. The Founders could never imagine how the nation would be today. There is now: “ abortion, bioethics, stem-cell, research, euthanasia, the rights of homosexuals, the teaching of the theory of evolution versus creationism or intelligent design” (246). There are two big factors as to why we can not go back to how the Founders were. First, the world has evolved so much so how can we go back to a way where none of these things were possible? They had a specific way for how religion worked in law, but there are new factors based on how the constitution needs to be. Second, Meacham still saw religion as a powerful thing as it was when the founders first put it into place, but today religion is not as powerful as it was back then. The world is changing everyday and evolving for what needs to happen. Maybe if the world was not as changed as it is now then we could go back, but we can not. I understand that Meacham wanted to go back to a time where the nation was unified and the Founders had a solid plan, but we cannot go back we can only go forward. Others have agreed that Meacham's idea of reverting back to the Founders way of viewing religion and law was not in the nation's best interest.
A historian named Gordon S. Wood wrote a book review on Meacham's book. In Wood’s article he brought many claims as to why Meacham's way of thinking was not the best idea. Wood has two main points in his book review. One is that we can not follow exactly how the founders worked with religion. It would never be the same. Wood says “We can’t solve our current disputes over religion by looking back to the actual historical circumstances of the founding.” After Wood’s quote he analyzed Meacham's work about how the past will never be the same. The second is how Wood does not necessarily agree with Meacham's claims. He also brought up the point that religion does not have as much power as it did. Wood explains that in today's society religion no longer has the effect on people where they listen to exactly what religion has to say about a certain topic.
tThroughout the whole book Meacham makes sure to provide evidence to prove his argument. He used private religion (allowed you to worship in churches and in homes however you wished) and public (which meant the founders spoke of God to unify people) to show that it was really up to the person on how they worship a higher power. To have a good book you have to make sure that you have many examples to back up your claim. While Meacham does a good job with providing evidence he finally mentions that even though the Founders could not have anticipated how the world would be today, that they planned for it. Meacham quotes “ The Founders got some things wrong, particularly slavery, but they were on the mark about much” (245). In an effort to try and rebuttal his own claims, he still feels that what the Founders had planned was the best option. I understand that the Founders could have have imagined today's life, but Meacham says they were prepared. Same sex marriage was not illegal for extensive time. People who cared for each other and wanted to get married couldn't because the laws that were in placed. In 1973 abortion was legalized which gave women the power to chose what they wanted to do with their bodies. Everyone should have the right to be able to make their own decisions about their life. With the Founders laws in place people would not be able to do make their life choices. This is Meacham's flaw fighting for something that worked centuries ago but would not work today.
t I have learned for most of my life, but I have never gone as in depth as I have about religion until I read this book. I knew religion was apart of our law, but I could never have imagined that it was this much. I have gotten many insights about how religion was interpreted in the past. What I found very interesting that the presidents used religion as an excuse for corrupt issues. The Founding Fathers saw that it was slavery was acceptable. I think after reading this book it gives me a new perspective on the government. I see how powerful religion was in the past, but what would have happened if religion had the same amount of power? Would we be the nation that we are today? Mecham has given me a new perspective of how the nation I live in really functions.

Jon Meacham appears to take a genuinely moderate approach to his examination of the role of religion in American history. He argues that America was not founded as a Christian nation, but he also declines to classify it as a purely secular nation where religion must be expunged from the public sphere. In clear, concise language, he relates the role religion played in America from the founding of Jamestown to Ronald Reagan, although he is rather sporadic in his approach, often flying through great expanses of history, including the Great Awakening (a rather strange omission for a book on religion and America). He argues that America has both "public" and "private" religion, the private religion being specific (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.), and the public religion being a type of general deism. He concedes that, on the whole, religion has been a positive influence on America.

While I appreciate that he approaches the role of religion with a moderate tone, I'm not sure I find his overall characterization of America or its founding fathers as religiously moderate convincing. Firstly, the founding fathers well may have been moderate for their own day, but they would hardly be considered so in ours. What if a modern President, as Abraham Lincoln once did, suggested that a present war was God's punishment for the national sins committed by Americans? (Indeed, Meacham himself, in the pages of American Gospel, reacts in horror at Jerry Falwell's extremism for suggesting our national sufferings in 9/11 were the consequence of our national sins.) What if a modern president where to make the kind of religious proclamations, today, that past presidents once made without concern that the public would scream, "Separation of church and state"? George Bush nearly sent people into fits merely by using words like "good" and "evil," but "moderate" politicians such as Ben Franklin routinely said things such as "We had daily prayer in this room of the divine power. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were answered." Meacham is right that the founding fathers were not sectarian zealots in their own time; what he fails to consider is the likelihood that they would be considered so in ours.

Secondly, Meacham's middle of the road approach fails to grasp how important the extremes of religious zeal were in bringing about major changes in United States history: abolition, the temperance movement, women's rights, and the Civil Rights movement—all major American political movements that were not fueled by moderate mainline attitudes, but by evangelical piety. Real historical change rarely results from moderation. Meacham makes some passing attempt to distinguish the use of the churches for the civil rights cause and the use of churches by conservative Christians to affect political change, but the distinction is quite spurious. Meacham's religious "extreme" appears to be those who use religion to further causes of which he doesn't personally approve; his religious "moderates" are those who use religion to further causes of which he does happen to approve. At any rate, the fact remains that, in U.S. history, religion has long mingled with politics, and it is not moderate and general religion, but deeply felt and specific religion, that has most often affected true change.

None of this is to suggest that America is a nation where Christians routinely strive to "force" their belief on others. Not even the most fundamentalist of American Christian denominations today advocates anything like a theocracy or the imprisonment of dissenters or the execution of homosexuals or religious tests for office. That is to say, one can be evangelical, zealous, or "extreme" in one's religion and still believe in religious tolerance and liberty; in fact, it is the most evangelical sects of Christians that have historically, traditionally supported the separation of church and state and not the presumably moderate "mainline" Christian denominations, which have tended, rather, to be established state churches.

America may not be a "Christian nation," but it is a nation OF Christians, many of whom are quite zealous compared to Christians in the rest of the western developed world. America boasts a more vibrant, more seriously held Christianity than any other western nation, with evangelicals numbering around 25% of the population. In America, church attendance greatly outstrips attendance in European countries with established churches. What America offers is not "moderation" in religion at all, but liberty, which is what makes real zeal possible. Established religion erodes zeal and slowly kills Christianity. But liberty gives birth to "extreme" religion, life-changing religion, nation-changing religion. What makes America unique is not that we are full of religious moderates or even that our founding fathers were religious moderates, but that most of our religious "extremists," unlike the religious extremists of most other times and cultures, have traditionally recognize that liberty is a friend of true religion.

So, while I appreciate that Meacham does not falsify history to fit it into a mythological Christian-nation mold as do too many fundamentalists, and while I appreciate that he does not wish to eradicate all vestiges of faith from the public sphere as do too many secularists, I ultimately find his thesis of moderations somewhat bland and lacking in historical insight. I had great hopes for the book from its opening pages, but it soon began to fall flat.

What can I say? Jon Meacham is brilliant. Granted, I am a history buff but Mr. Meacham is a National Treasure. His writing style is authoritative without being strident or boring. This book clears up a lot of misconceptions about the place religion has played in the founding and traditions of our nation. It is easy to see where and how the Freedom to Worship has been made into a battering ram of those who would like to use it as national Commandment that the US is a Christian nation. From Mr. Meacham's citations and research, we can see that while the Founding Fathers may have been believers in a higher power, most were actually Theists rather than subscribers to any particular faith. While acknowledging that most Americans were some stripe of Christian, the Founder also acknowledged that there should be protections for all faiths or no-faiths and that all should be protected from any sort of State religion. Great book. I highly recommend it to believers and nonbelievers alike.

“The atmosphere of our country is unquestionably charged with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy in all.” ---Thomas Jefferson, 1822

“Our fathers founded the first secular government that was ever founded in this world. The first secular government; the first government that said every church has exactly the same rights and no more; every religion has the same rights, and no more. In other words, our fathers were the first men who had the sense, had the genius, to know that no church should be allowed to have a sword; that it should be allowed only to exert its moral influence.” ---Robert Ingersoll, 1876

"If there is one thing for which we stand in this country, it is for complete religious freedom and for the right of every man to worship his Creator as his conscience dictates. It is an emphatic negation of this right to cross-examine a man on his religious views before being willing to support him for office. Is he a good man, and is he fit for office? These are the only questions which there is a right to ask…" ---Theodore Roosevelt, 1908

It irks me when I hear anyone say that the United States of America is a “Christian nation”. More often than not, the words are being spoken by right-wing fundamentalists whose myopic interpretations of Scripture are being used to justify their own often very non-Christian stances on a subject.

Not to mention that the very words “Christian nation” blatantly implies a disregard and dismissal of any and all other religions to be found in this country; as if Christianity were the only religion of note or value.

The very words “Christian nation” are used by people who clearly forget that our Founding Fathers believed that a separation of church and state was so necessary that it was written into the First Amendment of our Constitution.

As someone who (occasionally) considers himself a Christian, I take umbrage against the words “Christian nation” because they are words, more often than not, being utilized for political purposes to push agendas that I neither agree with nor consider very “Christian”, based on my own personal understanding of Christ’s teachings. Indeed, it sometimes seems that Christianity has been “hijacked” by the political---and generally religious---Right as a political tool to confound the---generally secular---Left.

But this is not a new problem. All the old problems are simply seen as new again because Americans have a very short memory, and they don’t learn from history.

Historian Jon Meacham’s book “American Gospel” is an immensely readable, fascinating, and objective historical overview of the conflict between politics and religion, between the religious and the secular, between private faith and public faith. It’s a short book (roughly 250 pages of text, with another 200 pages of end notes, appendices, and bibliography) that covers American history from the 16th-century to the Reagan Era and our attempts to meld and control religion and government.

Interestingly enough, Meacham’s book, published in 2006, does not cover the Bush Administration; he ends with the presidency of Ronald Reagan. It is, according to an afterword, a purposeful decision. He did not wish to cause problems or incite negative views of a sitting president. I admire his respectful decision, although, I will admit, it would have been interesting to read about the Bush presidency, which has, wittingly or unwittingly, ushered in a frightening era of radical religious fundamentalism.

To be fair, of course, President George W. Bush simply opened the door for people of faith to be more vocal about their religious views because Bush seemed like the first president to unashamedly espouse fundamentalist Christian views and speak openly about his faith. His openness excited Christians and terrified liberals and secularists.

There is nothing wrong with being open about one’s faith and espousing it. And, to be clear, Bush obviously wasn’t the first president to do so.

The problem becomes a question of fundamentalism.


n  American Extremismn
If I had to articulate one major take-away from reading “American Gospel” it is that religion and politics can be a fruitful and healthy marriage as long as extremism on either side is kept in check, which is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Meacham writes, “If totalitarianism was the great problem of the twentieth century, then extremism is, so far, the great problem of the twenty-first. It need not be this way. Extremism is a powerful alliance of fear and certitude; complexity and humility are its natural foes. Faith and life are essentially mysterious, for neither God nor nature is easily explained or understood. Crusades are for the weak, literalism for the insecure. (p.17)”

It is perhaps odd that extremism in the U.S. should still be an issue, especially considering our rich history with religious extremism. It was, after all, a reaction to a perceived religious extremism of the British government that led many early colonists to the New World. While certainly not all colonists were fleeing religious persecution, a great many looked toward the New World as a place where they could, hopefully, be free to worship and believe according to the dictates of their own conscience and NOT the dictates of the British government.

Ironically, according to American history, the persecuted sometimes became the persecutors. Some of the first colonial settlements devised laws that were highly restrictive regarding religious worship. Connecticut, in 1650, made worshipping “any God but the Lord God” punishable by death.

Several famous incidents within the colonies involved religious zealotry and religious extremism, some of which ended in tragedy. All of these were first and foremost on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they met to create the Constitution. They noted “a consistent theme: civil societies dominated by compulsory religious rigidity were unhappy and intolerant, while religious liberty seemed to produce more prosperous, stable, and popular cultures. (p. 57)”

In Article XVI of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, using language similar to what would be used in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, writers George Mason and Patrick Henry decreed, “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other. (p. 69)”

It is peculiar to secularists and, perhaps, integral to religious fundamentalists that the Founding Fathers would even create these documents using such religious language; liberally using words like “our Creator” and “Christian” throughout.

Their choice to do so has helped to incite a never-ending debate between secularists and religionists, neither side fully realizing or understanding how carefully crafted and nuanced such documents truly were.


n  Works in progressn

“Properly understood, both religion and America were forged through compromise and negotiation. They are works in progress, open to new interpretation, amendment, and correction. It would be wrong to give up hope that things can get better, our conversations more civil, our culture more tolerant, our politics less virulent. The acts of reading, of contemplation and discovery, of writing poems and finding cures and composing symphonies are, for the religious, acts of piety, and of thanksgiving. For the secular, such things may be about the wonders of nature, or of rationality, or of logic. So be it: the point is that we are all on the same odyssey, if for different reasons. In either case, the story is about moving forward, through the darkness, searching for light. (p.18)”---Jon Meacham

The Founders, to the chagrin of secularists, were not completely atheists. They were, however, to the chagrin of Christian fundamentalists, not completely Christian, either. They all met somewhere in the middle, and that has made all the difference.

Heeding the warnings and the dangers of religious extremism throughout history, the Founders were extremely hesitant about making Christianity a state-sanctioned religion. Pre-Revolutionary public language was quite often steeped in overtly Christian language, and making open professions of one’s faith and belief in Christ’s divinity was common.

The Founders, in their declaration of independence from Britain, however, “were also making another declaration: that Americans respected the idea of God, understood the universe to be governed by moral and religious forces, and prayed for divine protection against the enemies of this world, but were not interested in establishing yet another earthly government with official ties to a state church. (p. 78)”

It is difficult for a twenty-first century mind---one programmed to believe or accept anything and everything---to comprehend just how revolutionary this concept of the establishment clause was to an 18th-century mind.

The idea that the U.S.A. is a “Christian nation” is completely antithetical to the Founders’ deepest intentions.

Meacham writes: “The intensity with which the religious right attempts to conscript the Founders into their cause indicates the importance the movement ascribes to historical benediction by association with the origin of the Republic. If [Jerry] Falwell and his seventy performers, or Tim LaHaye in his Faith of Our Founding Fathers can convince enough people that America was a Christian nation that has lost its way, the more legitimate their efforts in the political arena seem. The problem with their reading of history is that it is wrong. There is no doubt, as we have seen, that the Founders lived in and consciously bequeathed a culture shaped and sustained by public religion, one that was not Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist but was simply transcendent, with reverence for the “Creator” and for “Nature’s God”. To hope, as some secularists do, that faith will one day withdraw from the public sphere, if only this presidential candidate or that Supreme Court nominee comes to power, is futile. Humankind could not leave off being religious even if it tried. The impulse is intrinsic. (p. 233)”

What the Founders accomplished was both unprecedented and incredible: the Great Experiment that is our country is founded on the principle that, regardless of one’s religious views---and that includes those of us who choose to have none---we are not only equal under the Law but that no one is (to quote George Orwell from “Animal Farm”) “more equal” than others in the eyes of God.

I really enjoyed this brief but sweeping journey through American history. Jon Meacham writes in an easy and readable style. His book helped dispel several myths from my childhood. This is really the first time I have explored this particular subject, so I’m hesitant to come down firmly on all aspects of this book. But I will say Meacham‘s middle ground argument sounds logical to me and seems to reflect The historical data. 4.5 stars

Jon Meacham’s book, American Gospel, examines through two aspects the manner in which religion relates to the government in the creation and maintenance of the United States. One is religious freedom in the country as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the beneficial role that it plays in a diverse society. Secondly, Meacham analyzes the function and practicality of public religion. Overall, Meacham believes religion plays a predominantly positive role within the United States and in its government.
Meacham’s book covers a broad time period from the Mayflower to the Founding Fathers to nearly present day. Meacham definitely did well researching and citing primary sources, clearly demonstrated in the entire back half of the book (the index). He also has a solid understanding of historical events and a thorough understanding of presidents’ personal religions. He quotes primary sources and scholars, and is able to cite a wide variety of details and context to support his claims. Despite such wide breadth and such a large amount of sources, however, there is not much depth regarding vital portions of religion in American history. For example, Meacham only briefly mentions women’s rights, slavery, the history of Native Americans, etc. Though these were all crucial turning points in American history, they are lucky to get a sentence in American Gospel Instead, he offers a one-sided, biased version of history and presents it like fact.
Meacham presents many quotes, sources, and facts throughout American Gospel, but does a lackluster job in examining them, especially in relation to his own claims and beliefs. The flow from evidence to conclusion is not a smooth one, lacking a logical progression that would allow the reader to be persuaded more effectively. He also lacks a thorough (or any) presentation of opposing viewpoints. On the rare occasion that he does incorporate his own writing and opinion into his book, Meacham acts as though there is no feasible contradiction to his claims and doesn’t feel the need to defend himself or refute potential disagreements, of which I have many.
Personally, I definitely agree with the importance of religious freedom. I believe that religious freedom is indeed a necessity in establishing and maintaining a simultaneously civil and diverse society. However, I do not believe the country’s dependence on religion is as prominent as Meacham asserts. I also do not fully agree with the idea of the cruciality of a supposed “public religion” - especially when Meacham’s evidence supporting such ideas references specific theology, contradicting his own statements about the nonspecific nature of public religion.
After reading American Gospel, I definitely have another perspective to take into account and more information to consider in forming and reconsidering my opinion, but I am still not convinced that religion is a necessity in government. By now, we have a well-established judicial and foundational moral system in place. The United States government has checks and balances as well as its three branches. The only religious influence present pertains to personal beliefs of people holding government positions, not the federal government as a whole. Perhaps it was relevant in the past, but religion is no longer a necessary federal guideline. Of course the more conservative would believe otherwise, but I am not convinced. Meacham claims that religion is objectively required to sustain a successful country. As Gordon Wood wrote in a review of American Gospel, “We can’t solve our current disputes over religion by looking back to the actual historical circumstances of the Founding; those circumstances are too complex, too confusing, and too biased toward Protestant Christianity . . . religion then was much more powerful and pervasive than it is now.” Wood contradicts Meacham’s assertion that modern times are comparable enough to the founding that our current issues can simply be solved by a flawless transfer of ideas, specifically religious ones, from past to present. Picking up a newspaper today is proof enough that the addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance or “In God we trust” to a dollar bill does not create unity in this country. Nor would adding more references to some vague, unrealistic God solve the issues we face.
If you’re looking for an easy-to-read, concise explanation of religion in American history, this book is not for you. American Gospel goes into extreme details on certain topics, and this book is somehow confusing and hard to follow while also lacking nuanced ideas. On the other hand, this book might suit a reader who is really into historical trivia because this book contains random bits and bobs of information that don’t necessarily pertain to their context and sometimes lack any relevance to an overarching argument. Additionally, this book would be much better suited for someone who is already at least somewhat historically knowledgeable in order to be able to read critically and find gaps and flaws in Meacham’s argument. American Gospel is rigorous and comprehensive in supporting Meacham’s beliefs, but it provides a very one-sided, biased perspective. Of course, everyone holds a bias one way or another and Meacham is simply expressing his bias in his own book. So, in order to develop a balanced perspective, American Gospel may be a valuable source to consider, but it should not be the only one.

This is a thoroughly researched book on a very important topic. Unfortunately, I just wasn't that interested, so I did not give it the attention it deserved.

That said, Mr. Meacham makes a plea for balance. No, the Constitution does not make a place for the establishment of religion, but religion has been a central part of the republic since the beginning. He traces how various political leaders have balanced the issue of religion. Secularists should not be attempting to drive religion from the public square. Such a stance ignores the history and reality of how religion has played a central role. That said, religious positions should not be forced on people. Like I said, he argues for balance.

I also learned that this issue will have to be debated and decided by every generation - there just is no hard and fast rule. Other than what Mr. Meacham argues for - recognize there is a balance and strive for that.

Fascinating look at how the founding fathers wanted to create a nation founded on Christian principles, but without any one religion taking precedence. These men wanted a worldly government where the people could be heard without the undue influence of one predominant sect.

Our founding fathers only had to look at Europe and its constant religious wars as an example. Many countries had a state religion that did not allow people to worship as they believed.

This separation between church and state has always been a balancing act, but the United States has been pretty successful in balancing the physical needs of the country, while allowing everyone to worship (or not) as they pleased. A large religious group in this country is trying to change this. Let's hope they are not successful.

Did not finish. I remember when this book came out, being really excited about introducing the concept of public religion and how that would change the discourse about separation of church and state. Unfortunately, instead of the theoretically driven analysis of American public life and how it can be read as a public religion, Meacham gives a defense of American exceptionalism based on the existence of a public religion. Choice quote: "Guided by this religiously inspired idea of God-given rights, America has created the most inclusive, freest nation on earth. It was neither easy nor quick: the destruction of Native American cultures, the ravages of slavery, the horrors of the Civil War, and the bitterness of Jim Crow attest to that." (Incidentally, this is one of the only places Meacham uses "Native Americans". Elsewhere it's always "the Indians"). I neither buy that what America has done is good, nor that its exceptional, and the few chapters of this book I could stomach did little to change that.

Good historical survey of American public religion. Should be read by those who believe that America was founded as either a Christian or purely secular country. Neither of these is true. As is often the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.