The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (Paperback)

~ (Author), R. Laurence Moore (Author) "AMERICANS SEEM TO fight about many silly things: whether a copy of the Ten Commandments can be posted in a city courthouse; whether a holiday..." (more)
Key Phrases: godless politics, godless constitution, religious correctness, United States, New England, Christian Coalition (more...)

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. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

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. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 192 pages
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company (February 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 039331524X
• ISBN-13: 978-0393315240
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (28 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #682,806 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

47 of 57 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 (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

"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.

18 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Right for the times, the right tone, begging for more, April 5, 2005

By	Michael Heath (North Woods of Michigan) - See all my reviews

This is a "must read" for anyone wanting to understand the relationship between government and religion leading up to, and just after ratification of our Constitution. Over the past several years there has been a plethora of books published that have tried to distort that relationship for current political gain. Consider this a partial "corrective action" to what is essentially propaganda from some authors with no scholarly credentials.

As much as I enjoyed reading this book however, there are several concerns that I have regarding this book that doesn't make this the "end-all" regarding the debate about the role our founding fathers had in mind regarding religion. First, the authors leadoff with a chapter that sets the stage for "why this book at this time". Unfortunately this is not a good start for these authors writing this particular book. The authors are near perfect in their ability to provide a true picture of our actual history in the middle chapters, but as analysts, the authors get into taking sides politically prior to making their case. I would have preferred saving the analysis for the end, besides, the history is the most fascinating aspect of the book.

In addition many people who need to receive this message, i.e., the religious right who have been fed propaganda by religious leaders like Dobson, Kennedy, and Robertson, could be put off by what they may sense is doctrine opposite, and thus negatively provocative, of what they believe is our true heritage. It would be a shame for these people to dismiss the book after the first chapter when this book would be more helpful to them than any other category of reader.

What I did like about the book was the discussion about where the idea for a secular government came from, Locke, Williams, Paine, and how the framers developed those philosophies into our current Constitution. While riveting, this discussion is not complete. Another aspect I enjoyed was rather than just going into what our framers' intentions were regarding the creation of a secular government, the authors also discussed the documentation and verbal debates of the framers' opponents that promoted a non-secular government. This makes it self-evident that there were sides to this debate back then and who was on which side and those on the side of secularism were clearly the framers, contrary to what some current day propagandists would have you believe.

The authors did an especially fine job of portraying the motivation for many devout Christians to create a secular government. The book features Roger Williams, an extremely devout Christian, who supported a secular government to "free churches from the designs of political men". In fact, there is a nice trail that leads from Williams in the 17th Century, to ratification of the Constitution, to the success of Baptists in building a base of members by forcing religion to gain members based on the "marketplace if ideas" rather than government support - exactly what Jefferson and Madison intended. The authors provide sufficient history to show how the "evangelicals" and Catholics of that day were for the most part strong secularists because they didn't have any political power, but now that these two groups currently compose a significant minority are pushing for the opposite - government power that endorses their belief system, an irony not lost on the authors.

Another fine feature is the authors did not depend on quotes by design, which are often used by ideologues on both sides to distort the true history of our founding, instead they discuss political battles and who sided with whom. Particularly interesting was President Madison vetoing "faith based charities" for his denomination of Episcopalians, the most potent political group among Christians of that time. Another great analogy was the fight to stop the movement of mail on Sunday during a time when the Postal Service was much more important to greasing the skids of the market than it is today. And still more evidence, the fight to change the Constitution's preamble so "We the People" didn't sanction and empower our government, but rather that our government derive its power from God and Jesus Christ ,with Their attributes defined by the government, much like the European theocracies that caused so much suffering through the Dark and Middle Ages.

What I would have hoped for from the authors was that they footnoted. While they do provide a great bibliography at the end and also discuss their reasons for not footnoting, I don't think one little book is going to dissuade zealots from clinging to lies, footnotes in today's world are imperative. While I absolutely trust the integrity of the authors, we have an abundance of people publishing distorted tracts that makes it imperative we require all authors to footnote (see Dobson, Robertson, and Kennedy for three examples).

I also would have preferred a more robust defense of our religious history. The authors are great writers, entertaining, engaging, and yet even-handed. At 177 pages, there was plenty of room to go into more detail regarding Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton source material; thus providing additional evidence along with their opponents for a more full-fledged portrayal that these men did in fact purposefully set out, and in fact succeeded, to create a secular government and a society where religion could blossom, or whither, based on merit rather than government power.

30 of 37 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

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.