Customer Reviews

Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty

5 star:		(33)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

As someone who, for the last quarter century, has researched and written about religious sensibilities in early America, I'm always astonished at the seemingly endless battle between those who insist that the Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians who founded a Christian nation (e.g., Tim LaHaye's Faith of Our Founding Fathers) and those who just as strenuously insist that the Founding Fathers were all Enlightenment secularists who loathed religion (e.g., Isaac Kramnick's The Godless Constitution). Although I think that there's more truth in the second than the first position, both of them are distortions, attempts to squeeze complex men and a complicated religious ethos into neat, unproblematic boxes.

It's refreshing that Steven Waldman refuses to compartmentalize in this way. His Founding Faith is a finessed treatment of the various influences, religious, military, pragmatic, and political, that coalesced to form the legal and cultural traditions of church-state separation. For Waldman, diminuitive "radically pluralistic" Madison is the real hero of the story who "deserves the greatest thanks" (p. 200). But Waldman reminds readers that Baptists such as Isaac Backus and John Leland were some of the most ardent champions of separation (unlike many of their 20th and 21th century descendants); that Thomas Jefferson, villified both during his own lifetime and afterwards as an atheist, in fact greatly admired what he took to be the ethics of Jesus; and that the first Great Awakening was a potent force in encouraging political revolution and independence. Waldman's point is that simplistic divisions of players into religious or nonreligious camps, as well as simplistically linear lines of causation when mapping the founding of the nation and the crafting of the separation policy, just don't have much explanatory value--even though they may be ideologically appealing.

I don't fully agree with everything that Waldman claims. I think, for example, that the case for the Founding Fathers being more deistic than anything else is stronger than he allows, primarily because I see 18th century deism as more fluid and less defined than he does. I'm also more ambivalent about the political influence of the Great Awakening than he is. But Waldman's treatment is pleasingly written, informative, well-researched and, given the current tiresome but loud cultural wars, remarkably timely. The book's final chapter, "They Were Right," focuses on the contemporary culture war by examining and debunking a series of "liberal," "conservative," and "common" fallacies about the Founding Fathers and religion. The discussions throughout the book of Madison's several-yeared campaign (including the sometimes torturous Constitutional debate) to establish religious liberty are especially good.

All in all, highly recommended.
_______
* Representative Elia Boudinot (New Jersey), in a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives on religious freedom and law. Quoted by Waldman on p. 150

Highly useful book on the religion of the Founding Fathers, and their intent concerning religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Founding Faith is a fair and balanced book, puncturing liberal and conservative myths about the topic with equal cheer, and more importantly, placing the discussion squarely within the historical context of what the Founders were doing and what it was possible for them to accomplish.

So were the colonies Christian? Yes, of course, and more, predominantly Protestant with considerable anti-Catholic bias. Most colonies did have an established church, mostly Anglican or Congregationalist, yet, after the revivalism of the Great Awakening period in the mid-1700s, the colonies were more religiously diverse than ever. The fear that the British Crown would force all the colonists to be Anglican was a factor in the Revolution.

Some of the factors leading the young nation into religious tolerance were pragmatic. George Washington, for example, was trying to forge a unified fighting force out of a religiously diverse group of soldiers. He had to quell the level of anti-Catholicism because he was trying to persuade the French Catholics in Canada to join in the Revolution.

Were the Founders Deists? No, they weren't, as even Jefferson and Franklin acknowledged the hand of Providence in the affairs of men. But neither were the five Founding Fathers that Waldman profiles orthodox Christians. Franklin flirted with a variety of religions, including Deism (the philosophy that God created the Universe like a watchmaker creates a watch, and then retreated from participation in his creation), but he also was was interested in the Great Awakening and thought the influence of Christianity upon the morals of people was a good one. Adams was more likely than the others to support government involvement in religion, but he moved more towards Unitarianism the older he got and rejected much of orthodox Christianity, thinking that the much that was good in it had been corrupted, but that its founding principles were still the best. Jefferson was similar but more so. Like Adams, he despised the influence of clerics throughout history. He rejected the divinity of Jesus and the miracles, but was so enthralled by the moral teachings of Jesus he twice cut apart Bibles and pasted the parts he thought uncorrupt into new documents and apparently read them often. Washington was the most silent about religion, rarely attended church, yet often used the religious rhetoric of his day. He did, though, speak of religious equality (for Jews specifically) . Most important of all was James Madison, who was the primary writer of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Madison did not leave behind a clear record of his religious views, but from what there is, he seems to have been more orthodox than the others. He was, however, of all of them, the most devoted to the idea of religious toleration. One of the factors that shaped this was his knowledge of the Baptist preachers in Virginia who were often jailed and beaten, and who had to go through lots of hoops to even be able to perform marriages. Madison believed that religious support for one church over others was BAD FOR RELIGION, as well as the state, that it oppressed some religions while making the dominant one lazy. He also thought it a weak faith than needed government support, as well as believing it was bad to force anyone to profess and be taxed to support a religion in which they did not believe. The original language of what is now the First Amendment refers to the "rights of conscience", an even broader formulation than what is in the current amendment.

One of the important historical points that Waldman made is that Madison was a politician, who had to be able to get the votes of other Congressmen to get the Bill of Rights passed. Madison did not get everything he wanted, and what was passed enabled those who wanted some religion in politics to interpret the result their way, as well as those who wanted a strict separation to interpret it their way. Most importantly, Madison did not get a law that applied the Bill of Rights to the states. This meant, for example, that states were perfectly free to establish churches, which most did, though they gradually disappeared during the first half of the nineteenth century. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War that the Bill of Rights did apply to the states.

Waldman's most important point, perhaps, is that many religious people did then and do now support religious toleration. "He [Madison] and his Baptist allies would be mystified by the assumption that being pro-separation means being anti-God." (p. 201). It seems no coincidence that the United Sates is one of the most religiously free, religiously diverse, and religiously flourishing nations on earth.

This is a very special book. The author has done an utterly superb job of original research and elegant concise representation of the nuances in belief, practice, and circumstances with respect to the matter of religion as confronted by the Founding Fathers, and especially Ben Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

We learn early on that freedom of religion was originally designed to apply only at the federal level--only later, when the North pushed through the Fourteenth amendment, did this get grandfathered upon the states.

We learn throughout the book that the original evangelicals wanted separation of the church and state, and made common cause with the rationalists, both groups believing that individual liberty and freedom of personal conscience were the core values.

Midway through the book we are confronted by the author with the reality that the diversity of faiths existent today in the USA render meaningless and unachievable any thought of America being a Christian or even a Protestant nation--pluralism rules.

Religion was appreciated by the Founding Fathers for its generally good impact on civic morals. George Washington especially, in the Continental Army, demanded religious tolerance, authorized chaplains, encouraged officers and men to attend religious services, and generally communicated a sense that the American Revolution was a "holy war" with God standing firmly with the colonies against England and the Church of England.

The author provides concise but no less shocking accounts of the early religious wars in America, with torture and execution and jail being imposed on Quakers and Baptists, Protestants against Jews and Catholics.

We learn that both Jefferson and Franklin doubted divinity but respected Jesus for his moral code.

Adams considered Catholics the "whore of Babylon" and this resonates with more than one modern US evangelical who has endorsed John McCain.

We larn that the Great Awakening and the revivals spawned a general practice of questioning authority.

The author draws a clear connection between political liberty and religious freedom--the two were intertwined from the beginning of the revolutionary impulse.

George Washington was spiritual but not theological.

There are many gifted turns of phrase throughout the book. One that stayed with me: Jefferson saw God not as devine, but as a "brilliant wise reformer offering a benevolent code of morals."

Madison held a dispassionate faith in contrast to the others. He also felt that one should err on the side of separation.

From page 192 the author lists and discuonts four liberal and four conservative falacies. Buy the book.

The conclusion is as elegant as the rest of the book: Separation is the root condition for nurturing the fullest possible religious diversity and vitality.

I put this book down with an intellectual, spiritual, and civic "WOW" in mind. Truly an extraordinary work, a very important work, a lovely piece of scholarship that is meaningful to every American and every immigrant would would be an American citizen.

Other books that are faith-related that I recommend:
God's Politics LP
The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right
Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik
The Complete Conversations with God (Boxed Set)
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America
Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction
Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors

DVDs I recommend:
Gandhi (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition)
Bonhoeffer
Tibet - Cry of the Snow Lion

First, here's what I like about Waldman's book.

I find his examination of the religious views of the five founders he focuses on to be among the most realistic and accurate that I've seen. I do have a few quibbles with some minor historical details, but most are not significant enough to affect my favorable opinion of this part of the book, in which Waldman presents, in their entirety, many of the quotes that are butchered by the "Christian nationalists" to create a false perception of these same founders. I also find it refreshing to see "the good, the bad, and the ugly" all embraced in the chapter on the settlement and early days of the colonies.

The parts of the book regarding the role of evangelical Christians in the fight for religious liberty are interesting and well-researched. I do, however, find Waldman's assessment of religion as a motivating factor in the fight for independence to be a bit exaggerated. There is no doubt that this was a significant factor for some, but I think Waldman goes a bit too far with this at times.

Now, here's what I don't like about this book.

My main concern is that it will give the reader who is not already familiar with the misuse of history in the church/state debate the erroneous impression that the historical distortions come equally from both sides. This is simply not the case.

The historical misconceptions and misquotes used by the "secularists" can be counted on one hand, while the literally hundreds of misquotes, distortions, and outright lies used by the "Christian nationalists" fill volumes.

The Christian nationalists have large, well-funded organizations, such as David Barton's Wallbuilders, Stephen McDowell's and Mark Beliles's Providence Foundation, whose primary purpose is spreading a distorted version of American history. They produce curriculums, send speakers across the country, and host radio and television programs. Their historical lies have made it into public schools via the National Council On Bible Curriculum, and even into proposed legislation like the recently introduced H. Res. 888, a resolution for the designation of an "American Religious History Week." The secularists, on the other hand, sometimes, in an article or on a website, copy one of a handful of misquotes or repeat the misconception that most of the founders were deists. There is just no comparison between the two sides in the number or level of distortions, or their intent.

There are actually only two secularist misquotes that have ever appeared with any frequency, and even these are rarely seen today as so many secularist websites have spread the word that they are inaccurate. Waldman writes the following about one of these:

"Those hoping to prove the irreligiousness of the Founders have no trouble finding ammunition from Adams. The liberal magazine The Nation and the website www.deism.org both homed in on this comment from Adams: 'Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But in typical culture-war behavior, neither the Nation or deism.org included the rest of the quote, in which Adams explained that the negative sentiment soon passed and was replaced by his realization 'Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.'"

To reinforce what I said above -- that this misquote is rarely seen anymore -- the Nation article cited by Waldman is from 2005, and deism.org no longer exists. Waldman even says in his endnote that this site was accessed in 2006.

Even the origin of this misquote can't be blamed on modern-day secularists. It actually dates to the mid-1800s. Because the first edition of Jefferson's writings was published in 1829, but none of Adams's writings until the 1850s, all anyone had for several decades was Jefferson's reply to Adams's statement. It was Jefferson who first repeated only part of the quote. In his reply, Jefferson put this in quotation marks, obviously quoting Adams, and it soon began appearing in other books. A number of nineteenth century books contain only the partial quote, attributing it to Adams, but citing Jefferson's letter as the source.

As I said above, most of the minor historical inaccuracies in Mr. Waldman's descriptions of the founders religious views are insignificant. There are, however, a few that are significant because they address actions rather than opinions, and tend to perpetuate some of the Christian nationalist myths.

For example, in his chapter on Thomas Jefferson's religious views, Waldman makes the claim that Jefferson "allowed for some government support of religion." He later states: "Initially, he even opposed having theology taught at the University of Virginia." Initially? That implies that Jefferson changed his mind at some point. Jefferson opposed this until the day he died, as did Madison, who took over after him. No theology was taught at the university until the 1840s, after both Jefferson and Madison were dead.

Comparing the post-Constitution government to the Continental Congress, Waldman claims that "the new government abandoned the practice of the Continental Congress of officially referring to the United States as a 'Christian Nation.'" Never once did the Continental Congress refer to the United States as a 'Christian Nation.' There is not a single instance of this phrase anywhere in the Journals of the Continental Congress.

Despite its flaws, I do recommend that people read Waldman's book. But, I also urge those who read it to do some further investigation, particularly regarding the amount of errant history coming from the Christian nationalists as opposed to the secularists. Compare David Barton's Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion to...well...my book, Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History Vol. 1, enough of which is freely available online for such a comparison. Amazon's rules prohibit me from posting a link to my website, but it can be found in my reviewer profile.

Founding Faith is a very timely book. Many people on the far left and far right like to use words from some of our founding fathers as evidence that their philosophies are justified. Waldman is very balanced throughout this book. He shows how both sides get it wrong and where they get part of it right. In this book the central topic is as the title makes clear the role of religion in the founding of our nation. Key individuals discussed in some depth include George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison "the father of the Constitution".

This period in American history, like other major periods including the Civil War, has seen a real proliferation of titles for the public's consumption, indicating a high interest and a real market (profit interest is always a factor) in the public's yearning to know more about our roots as a nation. The First Amendment rights, which include freedom of religion, are rights deeply ingrained in most Americans, but do we really know the background behind it. This is Waldman's focus.

Waldman looks at the earliest settlers and the role religion played, which was a significant one. Many were seeking religious liberty from the incidents of oppression experienced in Great Britain. But along with this search for religious freedom came some not so pleasant attitudes, such as anti-Catholicism, persecution of "witches" and others who held "deviant" beliefs. The Great Awakening and the impact of preachers like George Whitefield and others are all discussed in the course of the early years of the United States. Of course what will probably interest most readers are the views held by the "big figures" of the Revolutionary War period and the early years of the republic. What did Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, and others think about faith? Were the founders Deists? Did they really want a wall of separation between church and state? Were they pluralists or were they tolerant of the Christian faith only? These are the types of questions that will be asked and at least partially answered.

As Waldman writes, Washington's experience as commander of the Continental Army and its diverse group of men had a major impact on his attitude towards the diversities of faith. Jefferson's enlightenment views and his views of the clergy had a lasting impact on his religious attitudes. Madison's experiences in a Christian associated university and the plight of minority Christian denominations in his home region of Virginia were factors in shaping his views. In essence, the backgrounds of each founder had lasting impact. But in addition, these views could evolve or become more simplified as time passed for these leaders.

Many other figures make appearances here including other prominent politicians, preachers, and etc. who played a role in the debates surrounding religious liberty. There were established churches in many of the colonies before and after the famous First Amendment was ratified. The debate over a national establishment of a particular faith was what most interested the founders, though some did see a problem at the state level. Madison is the man who most comes across as the one who wanted to ensure through the law that government and religion should be protected from each other, but as Madison believed, according to the author, for the betterment of religion. Why did religion need the support of government when faith and belief in God should be enough? This is the type of reasoning the author makes in discerning the views held by those who argued for separation of church and state.

This is an endlessly fascinating study and could lead to further analysis of each of these major founders and how they were influenced by faith, but I'm cutting it short. I found it an enjoyable read and one that will hopefully lead people to be more open to interpreting what was said and done by our nation's earliest leaders.

"Founding Faith" makes an excellent contribution to our understanding of the origins and development of religious liberty in the United States. Nevertheless, I believe that Mr. Waldman places too much emphasis on the views and writings of just a handful of individuals, especially James Madison. His affection for Madison is palpable, but the truth of the matter is--a reality that Waldman grudgingly concedes--that Madison had to compromise his principles in order to secure adoption of what, for him, was a watered-down First Amendment.

Waldman also exaggerates the extent to which the views of Jefferson and Madison regarding the separation of church and state subsequently prevailed in this country. He applauds President Madison for abandoning his predecessors' practice of periodically calling for a national day of prayer and fasting, suggesting that Madison had seen the wisdom of not using his high office to encourage religious practices. But Mr. Waldman fails to note that Abraham Lincoln on no fewer than three occasions called for national days of fasting, humiliation and prayer. Lincoln, like Washington, believed that the country could not survive the current crisis without divine assistance and a willingness on the part of the citizenry to acknowledge and correct their misdeeds. No one at the time suggested that Lincoln had inappropriately breached the "wall" separating church from state, nor should they today.

In addition, Waldman, in his final chapter openly acknowledges the extent to which government and religion overlap and offer each other mutual support. Government pays for chaplains in the military, references God on its currency, and commences its legislative sessions with a word of prayer (though, given Congress' recent performance, I'm not sure the Almighty has been listening). The federal treasury also provides tremendous financial subsidies to churches: they don't pay taxes and all tithes and donations are fully deductible by church members--deductions that reduce the tax revenue the government ultimately receives. Although such an arrangement unquestionably constitutes government support of religion, it is one that redounds to the benefit of both parties. Because of these tax breaks, the Catholic Relief Services has the resources it needs to provide services to needy individuals who would otherwise be seeking assistance from the government. And just ask the folks in New Orleans who did a better job of providing emergency aid after Hurricane Katrina: FEMA or the tax-exempt Mormon Church?

Yes, as Mr. Waldman notes, we should not be wasting our time over matters such as prayers in public schools, but, by the same token, we should not deny that the "wall" that separates church and state has a lot of doors in it--doors that swing both ways to the benefit of all.

This book is, on the whole, a very good study of the Founding Fathers' attitudes about church and state. As always, with this issue there are a lot of misconceptions that need clearing up, and Waldman does so, to wit: the 1st Amendment to the Constitution only applied to the federal government but not the states, several of which had official churches; contrary to the feel-good assertion that "America was founded as a Christian nation" or was "founded on tolerance" most of the colonies were founded by partisans of one or another specifically Protestant sect and ruthlessly persecuted all others; church/state separation wasn't necessarily a secular cause- some of the most religious people, having experienced state-sponsored religious persecution, were the most zealous supporters of a religiously neutral government, etc.

One of Waldman's purposes in this book was to impartially dispel the myths on both sides of the modern debate. For instance, he says right wingers are wrong when they say that the Founding Fathers were Christians and the concept of church/state separation is a 20th century invention. He says the liberals are wrong when they claim the Founding Fathers were deists who despised religion. Those 2 assertions are correct, but I think his pox-on-both-their-houses even-handedness goes too far. Both of the preceding positions may be wrong, but one side is a lot more wrong than the other.

What I mean is that the evangelicals' position is blatantly false. The Founding Fathers, or at least the ones we think of when we use that phrase, were no sort of Christians that today's evangelicals would recognize. Jefferson edited the Bible and thought Jesus to be merely a wise man. Franklin was an admitted polytheist at at least one point of his life. Adams was an anti-clerical Unitarian. Washington, although a church member, attended infrequently, refused to receive Communion and hardly ever mentioned Jesus. Similarly, the assertion that church-state separation is a modern liberal invention is demonstrably untrue.

Waldman also takes the liberals to task, although their error is one of mere nuance. They usually say that the Founders were deists while technically that is not true. A Deist believed that God did not intervene in man's affairs, while the Founding Fathers often made statements indicating that they believed "God" had provided this or that benefit to the American cause. Along the same lines, the Founders were mostly very religious, contrary to liberal belief. They may have used Masonic or Deistic language when referring to "Providence" or "Nature's God", and they may have disliked organized Christianity, and they may not have believed in the central tenets of orthodox Christianity, but they thought deeply about spiritual matters and considered religion extremely important.

It's that equating of a position that is 100% false with one that is semantically incorrect that bugged me about this book. Church/state admixture is not only a bad idea but it is un-American. I say that as a man of faith and a conservative. Evangelicals who want to overturn our 220 year old consensus are either ignorant of the dangers of state involvement in religion, or they deliberately aim at sectarian tyranny. They would do well to read the Founding Fathers' writings on this subject. I too am uncomfortable with the more extreme forms of opposition to public religious expression. But that is our law and our tradition. If previous generations of a homogeneously Christian nation found no problem with certain acts of religious favoritism by government, it was still contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment and is impracticable today in our pluralistic society. I would rather have a religiously neutral government than one in which I'm forced to endure, or subsidize, religious ideas I oppose. Evangelicals seem to think their particular faith would triumph if the 1st Amendment were "reinterpreted". But I would love to see how they'd cite the Constitution if their bugaboo, Barack Hussein Obama, called for Allah's blessings during the State of the Union!

One last issue I had with this book was the author's repeated use of the word "evangelical" to describe various figures and denominations from the 18th century. Such a description is an anachronism that those 18th century figures would not recognize. The Evangelical movement began after WWII in reaction to fundamentalist close-mindedness. However, they would love to claim a historical lineage from such major figures as Jonathan Edwards, and Waldman plays right into their hands for some reason.

The left and right fight over the founding fathers. This is a great discussion about how neither have it right. Very interesting read.

A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx

This is an excellent review of American history and the nation shaping forces on hand in Philadelphia as the Constitution was written. I thank my fundamentalist friends for inspiring me to research and think about religion. This book dwells on the details contemporary society denies yet invites us to step back and seek another POV.
I understand we were blessed that the writers had a stronger sense of history, had seen the bloody and discriminatory results in their own states and genuinely wanted a union untainted by dogma.
Theocracy was much worse than King George's tyranny. The awful deep bloodletting of the French Revolution had the sticky hands of the Reformation and class on it's blades. Yet religion thrived here because of the separation of church and state.
I remember that Carl G Jung warned Americans that we too could fall victim to extremists if we didn't resist their rise. This great book both arms us with history and supplies us with a middle ground.

With Ehreman's "Misquoting Jesus" recommended for questing, thinking hearts.

This is truly an excellent book. It's really the first non-hysterical treatment of church-state separation I've ever read. Written in a very readable style, the book is easily accessible to a high school student or even a bright middle-schooler, yet the wealth of footnotes and references, and the extensive bibliography, provide ample starting places for those interested in digging deeper.

Moreover, as a Christian, I found this a very encouraging book. If you've already made up your mind on either side of the debate, the book will probably just irritate you. But if you're concerned and trying to make sense of the discussion, this book is great. It made clear, for starts, that the culture wars we have now on the separation of church and state started with the founding of the country (and actually before). "Founding Fathers" on both sides of the issue had well-thought-out reasons for their positions, which the author articulates. Most interesting of all, perhaps, is that much of the drive for church-state separation came from Christians who felt that the interaction of government and religion harmed faith, which, after some discussion, turns out to be a compelling view.

In short, I found the book quite valuable, and will keep it instead of donating it to the public library where most of my purchased books go. I wish that I could make those I know on both sides of the issue read this thing.