The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness [Hardcover]

Isaac Kramnick (Author), R. Laurence Moore (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 1996

No issue has disturbed American politics more than the attempt by the Christian right to dismantle the traditional wall between church and state erected by the framers of the Constitution. Efforts to inject religious issues into the secular business of democratic government, and extravagant claims that America was founded as a Christian nation and that it should return to that condition, have led opponents to argue that the absence of any mention of God in the Constitution was a conscious action on the part of the framers, intended to prevent the bloody religious controversies that had marked European history. In this polemic two scholars refute the attempt to introduce what they term "religious correctness" into American politics. This text suggests a return to the first principles of democracy and offers a guide to keeping them intact.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

While neither a full nor a particularly sophisticated treatment of the issue of church/state separation, this is a compelling rebuttal to those who claim that America is a Christian nation. The authors don't address the many recent judicial controversies about public expression of religion. Instead, they explore the Constitution's origins and its "intentionally secular base." They point out that even the religious men among those who ratified the Constitution wanted to distance religion from government. Also, they discuss the views of Roger Williams, who wanted to keep the church pure and thus separate; of John Locke, whose liberalism limited the role of the state; and of Thomas Jefferson, who incorporated Locke's ideas in America. Indeed, the authors note that the godless Constitutional structure was undermined only later, when God entered U.S. currency, in 1863, and in such institutions as the Pledge of Allegiance. The authors believe that while the Constitution does not exclude religion from the public square, it offers no special privileges; thus, they say, religious faith should not be a litmus test for political leaders. Kramnick teaches government at Cornell University; Moore teaches history there.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Scholars Kramnick (government, Cornell) and Moore (history, Cornell) have abandoned the "scholarly apparatus" of footnotes and bibliography in favor of an impassioned polemic on separation of church and state aimed at a popular audience. They present the case that strict separation of church and state, while a source of debate from the nation's founding onward, was indeed the intent of the founders. The vision of a limited, secular state populated by a religious and moral citizenry was at the heart of the new American republic. Using well-selected historical examples, they distinguish "between a religiously informed politics and the politics of religious correctness." The debate about the proper balance between church and state continues today, perhaps approaching its highest pitch since the Constitutional period. The authors ably present a timely and important topic in this election year in all its historical context and complexity. For most large collections.?Linda V. Carlisle, Southern Illinois Univ., Edwardsville
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 191 pages
• Publisher: W W Norton & Co Inc; 1st edition (January 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393039617
• ISBN-13: 978-0393039610
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (32 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,117,924 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

53 of 70 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Answer For All Those Who Would Rewrite History, February 16, 1999

By 

Robert Derenthal "bucherwurm" (California United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (Paperback)

"The founding fathers established the Constitution, and over 94 percent of it is directly from the Bible." Those are the words of Lee Behnken, an active promoter of PSCA, an organization dedicated to putting chaplains in our public schools. Evangelicals like Behnken often make such statements, and in doing so show their abysmal knowledge of the Constitution and those who developed it.

There actually is no mention of God in the Constitution, and the only reference it makes to religion is in article 6 where it states that there shall be no religious test for political office. A current tragedy is that religious conservatives have, indeed, established informal religious tests of office through their "voting guides".

In developing the constitution men like Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison were strongly influenced by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke who believed that the function of Government was solely to keep the peace. While religious enthusiasts like to point out the section of the Declaration of Independence that states that our "Creator" endowed us with certain unalienable rights, they seem unable to thoroughly assess the meaning of the following words that state these rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are secular attributes of government, i.e. that the state should protect us, and our property, and keep us free. And that is exactly the role envisioned by our Founders. Government should not promote religious laws that place restriction on our basic freedoms. Government should not decide moral issues.

Jefferson and the others felt that when religion was involved in government it corrupted government and degraded religion. He felt it absurd that politicians should be the interpreters of the will of God. God, said Jefferson, needs no government officials to speak for Him.

Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison did not want religion mixed with politics, and this book provides us with an excellent exposition of their views. Many Christians were very upset with the "godless constitution" and founded various organizations that from 1863 to 1945 fought for an amendment that would provide a statement in the preamble "acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government..". They, fortunately, have never been successful.

17 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars 1st Class overview of what the 1st Amendment is all about, January 9, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (Paperback)

This is not a conservative versus liberal book. It is a concise overview of the question of church state seperation under the First Amendment. Is there an absolute wall? If so, on what basis and why? The authors cover the history of the Amendment and the challenges to its interpretation by those with a theocratic bent and others who oppose political domination by religious majorities. This reader is a conservative voter who found the work well worth reading and sound in its arguments and conclusions. Those who favour liberty will find much on which they agree with the authors.

30 of 39 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A hard book to argue with, August 13, 2001

By 

Kingdaddy (Bay Area, CA, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (Paperback)

Currently, we don't have an informed discussion of the wall of separation between religion and politics, between faith and law, in the media. Instead, we have shouting matches free of information that might help end some of the disputes.

Karmnick and Moore set out to provide a brief, readable primer on (1) what the Framers had in mind when they separated Church and State, (2) what thinkers or events informed their conclusions, and (3) what relevance all of this has to the current debates on school prayer, tax-exempt status for churches, and other issues.

Their argument is hard to argue with. The "no religious test for public office" clause (and the debate it generated) in the Constitution is their starting point for understanding what Madison, Jefferson, and others had on their minds when they wrote the core documents of American politics, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And there's a lot more critical background they discuss, such the Lockean view of the secular social contract between citizens and the government they create, and the religious arguments by people like Roger Williams and others in the 17th and 18th centuries against intermingling politics and religion. It's pretty clear what the Framers had in mind, and it was to keep religion and politics separate to the advantage of both.

By the way, Steven Tooley's rebuttals here on Amazon are completely disingenuous and hit not the core of the book's arguments, but peripheral matters. He misunderstands Locke, a man of profound faith who also felt that government was not sanctioned by God, but created by human beings to serve very specific purposes. And for a guy who complains about "ad homein" [sic] attacks, Tooley doesn't hesitate to make comments like, "Are these two professors trying to pull the wool over everyone eyes for a reason, or have they themselves been brainwashed?" Read the book (which contains a lot of quotes from primary sources, by the way) and decide for yourself.