Customer Reviews

The Myth of Christian America : What You Need to Know About the Separation of Church and State

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The book includes eight appendices with excerpts of important historical documents, making it easy to read original source material and form one's own judgments concerning the intent of the Founding Fathers. The authors proceed through nine short chapters (each followed by excellent discussion questions) to demonstrate that regardless of what the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers may have been as individuals, they did not desire that the Constituion create a Christian Nation. Indeed, they demonstrate quite persuasively that the notion that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is a myth. More and more conservative Christians today seem to argue that separation of church and state is not found in, or founded upon the Constitution. I wish I could get them all to read this easy to read book, because as a conservative Christian myself, it worries me that there are so many uniformed people ready to believe leaders who tell them that separation of church and state is a myth.

This book unintentionally divides into two parts. The first part outlines arguments for and against the Religious Right's claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. Whitten backs up his discussion well with authoritative interpretations and references. Proponents of separation should find this part (and the appendices and bibliography) useful.

The last few chapters, however, are an abstract discussion of the dialectical process Whitten believes we should use to conduct our national debate. In this dialectic, opposing ideas meet to create a new, higher truth. Whitten believes the "wall of separation" metaphor has led to a narrow reading of the First Amendment and that strict nonestablishment is as dangerous as are restrictions on free exercise of religion. Thus, we are best served if separationists and accomodationists debate their ideas fairly to find a solution that transcends "the wall."

This dialectic process is a fine philosophic concept, but in this book it substitutes a presupposition about how to find truth for actual incidents involving the separation of church and state. We are given claims but no evidence.

Much in this book is useful, but it fails to make the case for me that strict separation endangers religious liberty. Nonestablishment and free exercise are two sides of the same coin, not opposing ideas. Besides, whoever said neighbors can't talk over the wall that separates their properties?

This book is very balanced, and is not hostile to religion. It argues very fairly for the separation of church and state in the U.S., and explains why it is important, and all the Supreme Court cases over the years that have established this principle very clearly in the U.S. I highly recommend this well-researched, and balanced book.

provides a chilling look at how the ideas of the fouding fathers are ignored merely because they happened to be religous themselves. counters the assumption that the founding fathers intended to push their religion on the entire nation -- both in teh present and the future -- and instead clearly and methodically illustrates how they truly intended to make america a place where religion is a personal issue, not a legislative one.

The founding fathers were horrified by witch hangings conducted by Christian Puritans, and by atrocities committed by state-enforced Christian churches in Europe. The founding fathers were attracted to a deistic concept of God, a kinder, more humanitarian God than the jealous, cruel, vindictive God of the Bible. The founding fathers were well-read and had studied many religions. Washington was acquainted with Buddhists and with "Mohammetans", as he spelled it. In 1778 James Madison said to the Virginia Convention on Ratifying the Constitution: "Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest." Deists valued reason, science, knowledge, not religious superstitions.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison were not Christians but were rationalists and deists. Jefferson hoped that America would be a tolerant land of religious diversity; he was a Unitarian. Madison wrote in 1774: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind." They believed in reason, not mythology.

This book is a conversation starter for those who trying to sort out the appropriate role of religion in American public life. It should provide a stimulating start for a reading journey at the center of contemporary American history. For those who come away concerned, or indeed, not very concerned about the errosion of religious freedom and separation of church and state in the U.S., the logical next reads are Why the Religious Right is Wrong about Separation of Church and State, by Robert Boston...

While I recommend this book, it is not without reservation.

Mr. Whitten states his objective is to "communicate the constitutional philosophy and principle of church-state separation to pastors, laypersons, and anyone who is not conversant with the discipline of church-state studies." Mr. Whitten wants his fellow Christians to embrace the legacy of Baptists at our founding and build their ideology on America's ideals rather than falling for the propaganda spewing forth from today's religious right hungry for political power.

While I admire the accuracy of Mr. Whitten's claims, I'll grade his effort an incomplete regarding his providing his target audience sufficient evidence that our founders were intent on creating a secular government whose leaders had the freedom to embrace what they termed "freedom of conscience".

I admit I'm not part of Whitten's target audience because I'm quite conversant on the relationship between church and state at the time of our founding and already knew that the creation of our government was based on the objective to eradicate influence by religion on civic matters to ensure America was truly free. Though those principles weren't perfectly executed at our founding, just like "privileges and immunities" rights weren't protected beyond propertied white men upon ratification of the Constitution either; we aspire to the principle; execution in an environment of prejudice is always challenging. I read the book because I wanted to understand how well Mr. Whitten communicated with the religious right so intent on revising history and pushing to mutate our government into a form of theocratic fascism and whether he provided an adequate argument to cause those that really care for our country to reconsider their attempts to extend the government power and reduce our religious freedom.

First off, while the title of the book is provocative, it will most likely immediately alienate his target audience. I doubt most evangelicals and fundamentalists define "myth" the way a historian or scholar would, instead believing it to mean "lie". Since most people seek out books to re-affirm their beliefs rather than challenge those beliefs, the title alone will significantly reduce the number of people who will buy and read Whitten's book that are a member of Whitten's target audience.

The book is structured into 9 distinct essays, some of which I will expound on:

Religious Liberty for Thee, But Not for Me?
Whitten make the case that religious liberty can only be assured if the government is unable to endorse a particular religion. A short well-written argument that is self-evident to any rational person; Whitten also expounds the point that it is irrelevant to the leaders of today's religious right since its not religious freedom they want, they already have that, it is the desire to use the power of the government to transform their dogma into law depriving Americans of some of their freedoms.

The Facts of Church-State Separation
While Whitten provides some evidence that our founders' objective was to create a wall, he depends too much on subsequent Supreme Court rulings rather than source material from our founders themselves. I would have added the text within the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli since it was formal U.S. policy signed by President Adams and unanimously ratified by Congress, which stated: "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

I would have also added numerous policy decisions by early Presidents reinforcing our secular government, along with providing information regarding the enemies of the framing of our Constitution, like Patrick Henry mentioned in a previous reader's review.

I believe this chapter also needed a discussion on the difference between the framers' verbal comments regarding their support of religion in Americans' lives and why their policy decisions (like the Tripoli Treaty or Madison's veto of government funding of faith-based charities) came down squarely on reinforcing an institutional separation between church and state. Recently Justice Scalia dissented in a 10C case (McLeary v. KY) where Scalia ignored founding policy and used verbal rhetoric providing evidence that our framers had faith; as if that somehow equated to their intent to institutionalize their faith by extending government power to endorse a particular sect.

The chapter where Mr. Whitten really shines is in the chapter commenting on the relationship between the two 1st amendment religion clauses and whether the original intent was to have equilibrium or whether one clause should be interpreted more broadly than the other term. I learned quite a bit from Mr. Whitten's analysis and believe this was the best commentary on this subject I've ever read. Mr. Whitten appears not to favor either of the three arguments, instead providing a fair analysis of all three and thus pushing me into a new area of interest. This would be an excellent topic for a new book by Mr. Whitten.

In the year 2005, the propagandists have been provided an even larger forum to distort our true legacy without rebuke; books like these are needed more now than ever before. I'd love to see Mr. Whitten republish this book, only with a new title and more evidence of the radical tact our framers took in creating a government of "We the People" with a government unable to govern our spiritual life or create 2nd class citizens of those that don't subscribe to the majoritarian sect or faction.

Regarding a below review by Mr. Tooley; his review states, "America was not founded by religionist but by Christians. It was not founded upon religions but upon the gospel of Jesus Christ" Patrick Henry"

While Patrick Henry helped America greatly to revolt against King George III, Henry did NOT advocate ratification of our Constitution partially based on its inherent secularism. Not only did Henry decide not to attend the Philadelphia Convention though he was invited, additionally he actively lobbied his state of Virginia NOT to ratify the Constitution. Previous efforts by Henry to establish the Christian religion in Virginia also failed, James Madison led an effort (culminiating in Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" essay) where Virginia's General Assy overwhelmingly defeated Henry's bill to establish Christianity as the State Religion and one year later, 1786, guaranteed Virginia's citizens religious freedom by a vote of 67 to 20.

So while Mr. Tooley's quote may be correct, I didn't verify it, it is certainly true that Mr. Tooley is quoting someone who is assurdely NOT a framer of the Constitution, the highest law of the land and the document which dictates the structure of our secular government whereby Americans claim certain rights and deprives the government of certain powers - like establishment of religion.

The Myth of Christian America", by Mark Weldon Whitten, asserts that members of the so-called `Religious Right' (fundamentalist Christians) claim that America was founded specifically as a Christian nation; and Whitten ardently refutes this claim. Whitten infers, further, that the `Religious Right' is attempting to erode the `church-state separation' principle in favor of the principle of `state-church accommodation' in order to establish a primarily fundamentalist Christian presence in government services. Whitten strongly advocates protecting `religious freedom' (for all religions, not just Christianity) by striking an appropriate balance between the constitutional principle of `church-state separation' and (minimal) `state-church accommodation'.

Whitten acknowledges (in agreement with the 'Religious Right') that `church-state separation' is not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution. Notwithstanding, Whitten argues that, contrary to the view of the `Religious Right', `church-state separation' is undeniably a constitutional philosophy and principal. Whitten argues, further, that the only question is the appropriate degree of `church-state separation', and he warns against implementing this principle so rigidly that it impinges upon `free exercise' of religion (or non-religion).

Whitten indicates that the purpose of the `free exercise' and `non-establishment' clauses (aka, `religion clauses') of the First Amendment (taken together) is to protect the general population from religionists (or secular humanists) who might attempt to use the coercive power of government to impose their beliefs on others, or to justify their own political agendas. Whitten indicates that in general there are two strategies available for protecting `religious liberty' (or freedom of conscience) for citizens of all faiths and none, based on the `free exercise' and `non-establishment' clauses of the First Amendment:
a) ACCOMMODATION - Maximize `FREE EXERCISE' of religion via governmental `ACCOMMODATION' of institutional religion
b) SEPARATION - Minimize `ESTABLISHMENTS' of religion via maximal/strict `SEPARATION' of institutional religion and government

However, as Whitten points out, there is an inherent logical `tension' and practical `conflict' between these two important constitutional principles, and they need to be continually balanced against one another in all relevant governmental (e.g. executive, legislative, judicial, regulatory, welfare) decisions in the interest of protecting, not restricting, religious freedom. More specifically, Whitten expands on some considerations for pitting the religious clauses against each other, as follows:
a) FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE - Whitten indicates that, if the `free exercise clause' is implemented by maximal `accommodation of a majoritarian religion' (e.g., Christianity) this could lead to bigotry and intolerance of non-Christians; this would threaten religious liberty. Whitten states, "While some contact and accommodation are inevitable and acceptable, accommodation should be minimal, instituted only when necessary, rather than maximal or established whenever desired."
b) NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE - Whitten indicates that, if the `non-establishment clause' is implemented too rigidly via absolute `church-state separation' this could lead to antireligious (against all religions) bigotry and intolerance; this would threaten religious liberty. Whitten states, "The greatest degree of separation possible, up to the point at which excessive separation in the name of nonestablishment threatens legitimate free exercise claims and practices, should be the presumption and norm."

The book is organized into nine separate (short) essays, each addressing a different aspect of Whitten's argument against the Religious Right's position. At the end of each essay there is a list of provocative discussion questions as well as notes. Additionally, there are eight appendixes with excerpts from supporting documentation (e.g., The United States Constitution, Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, The Williamsburg Charter, et al), and a bibliography.

This book is provocative and informative; and the writing is crisp. The book is relatively brief (only 120 pages) with each essay highlighting the author's arguments (and opposing views) pertaining to the topics at hand. The reader is 'invited' to ponder the subject further, address the discussion questions, perform independent reading, and ultimately form his/her own opinion. I recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the `free exercise' and `non-establishment' clauses (aka, `religion clauses') of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The author of the book, Mark Whiten is the president of The Greater Houston Area Chapter of American United for Separation of Church and State (AU). The AU is a organization that borders on being a strict separationist group. However, Mr. Whiten in his book, portrays himself as a middle of the road seperationist, this false duality however bleeds through making one wonder why the facade.

The book starts off portraying the normal left wing reactionary attack on religion. He incites the ignorant by his rhetoric that religious nuts want to impose a theocracy on us. These wacko's try to achieve this by telling us that the United States of America was started by our founding fathers to create a Christian (theocratic) state. Unfortunately this is a straw man as even finally Mr. Whiten tacitly admits, most clearly, on page 86, the only `Christian' group wanting to impose a theocracy are the Reconstructionist and this group is of minute proportions. So the actual question is what do most members of the mainstream religious right say about the United States and its founders. Well something like this:

"The Christian religion, though its moral and religious teachings and its cultural influences, was a significant personal influence upon the delegates to the constitutional convention of 1787, and thus indirectly upon the constitution they drafted."

That's it, that's those supposed fanatical religious right have to say about the subject. Oh by the way, that quote comes right out of the authors' mouth on page 35. You see he even admits it. The dirty truth that Mr. Whiten doesn't want let out is that the United States of America was founded just as Patrick Henry said:

"America was not founded by religionist but by Christians. It was not founded upon religions but upon the gospel of Jesus Christ" Patrick Henry

The crux of the book seems to be the applauding of judicial revisionism that occurred in the 1940's regarding the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. For those who are unaware from when the constitution was written to the 1940's a total of 160 years the establishment clause had been interpreted in one way.

In the 1940's through a liberal activist supreme court they reinterpreted the constitution to mean the opposite of its plain reading and original intent. This broad range and seeping decision created tensions between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as the author has noted. Before this misinterpretation there was no tension and very little need for any judicial judgments on these matters. Now we have a quagmire of unclear rulings that hinder the free exercise clause while promoting the establishment clause.

What is interesting is this very fear was exactly what the first amendment was created to stop. It is also noteworthy that this issue is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was speaking about when he answered the Danbury Baptists in his infamous letter. So while Mr. Whiten pays lip service to his favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson he in effect works for the antithesis of what Thomas Jefferson wanted. Mr. Whitten views Thomas Jefferson and the panoply of his writings and works through the proverbial `looking glass'.

The very amendment that is crucial to what makes America great has been weakened and the author is gleeful over this. I wonder if Mr. Whiten realizes that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are inexorably linked. As he and others try to impose limits on religion they are also imposing limits on our freedom of speech. Sorry Mr. Whiten, I would rather have this country guaranteeing freedom OF speech along with freedom OF religion. Your goal of freedom FROM religion will logically lead to the pernicious freedom FROM speech.

To sum up maybe we ought to reflect upon the sage advice of Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."