Customer Reviews

Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the Present

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

 

 

I bought this book because I was given to understand Noll is one of the deans of the history of Christianity in the United States. I was given to understand that he is, first and foremost, a scholar, and the pursuit of truth makes him sometimes controversial (at least among Christians) for portraying that history in a light less than flattering to Christians. I can live with that, as I too prefer truth.

Of course Noll is only the editor of this particular volume, but he is solely responsible for what he included and excluded. The first essay is by John M. Murrin and treats religion and politics from the first settlements to the Civil War. Murrin's characterization of the faith-environment in early settlements is strictly true from the perspective Murrin offers, but is a gross falsehood when that same environment is viewed from a broader perspective. Murrin states, probably correctly, that, by and large, early settlers did not enjoy the religious liberty they are famed for having fled England in search of - choices of religious expression were probably limited it is true, but this is like arguing - as a communist might - that, There is no real political freedom in America since one's only real option for political expression in America is democracy.

Murrin caps his distorted perspective on the early settlements with this gem: "A mere half-century before the drafting of the Bill of Rights, a well-informed observer could not easily have detected in most of the American colonies much of the popular base for the active separation of church and state as proclaimed in the First Amendment." Today's well-informed observer will readily find the deep flaws in Murrin's analysis. First it presumes that "separating" church and state was the intention expressed in the First Amendment. Scholars of quality know that "separation" is not the most apt word to express Founders intent. Founder's main intent - arising out of fears of an overreaching federal government - was to prevent that federal government from ever using its power to establish an state church. Moreover, Founders did not envision First Amendment limitations as extending to the state governments - First Amendment was to serve as check upon the federal government. If Murrin understood and accepted this truth, than his entire warped perspective on the religiously oppressive environment in the early settlements would have to change, wouldn't it? Of course, the truth about the First Amendment solves Murrin's conundrum - it was precisely because the early settlers had a firmer grasp on the truth than Murrin, or Noll apparently, and had erected a fairer and balanced approach to governance and religion than Murrin or Noll would probably be capable of, that they were able to fashion the kind of Constitution we ended up with.

In sum, with my exposure to this volume has dispelled the notion I once had about Noll as a first rank scholar. If Murrin's mush is the kind of scholarship Noll deems worthy of highlighting, than I know all I need to know about Noll - a scholar overrated at best, and a gross distorter of history at worst.