Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State Paperback – October 1, 2009
"Children of Blood and Bone"
Tomi Adeyemi conjures a stunning world of dark magic and danger in her West African-inspired fantasy debut. Learn more
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Customers who bought this item also bought
Ross and Smith restore George Washington's view of church and state to its proper place in history, which will inevitably change what we think and say in the present. Hint: He and Thomas Jefferson didn't see eye to eye. --Richard Brookhiser, Author, What Would the Founders Do? and Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington
Ross and Smith's study of Washington illuminates the question of church and state in America in remarkable ways. They have written a truly enlightening and thought-provoking book. --William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard
Under God examines a subject that has long deserved careful attention. This book is a must-read for every patriotic citizen. --Edwin Meese, Former US Attorney General
From the Inside Flap
No American living in 1800 would have predicted that Thomas Jefferson?s idiosyncratic views on church and state would ever eclipse those of George Washington?let alone become constitutional dogma. Yet today?s Supreme Court guards no doctrine more fiercely than Jefferson?s antagonistic ?wall of separation? between church and state. Washington?s sharply contrasting views, explored in a path-breaking new book, suggest a more reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment, one that is consistent with religion?s importance to the enterprise of democracy.The most admired man of his age, Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention and was president when religious freedom was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. His claim to constitutional authority is considerably more impressive than the brilliant?but eccentric?Jefferson?s. Washington considered religion essential for the virtue required of self-governing citizens. Though careful not to favor particular sects, he believed that a democracy must not merely accommodate religion but encourage it.Ross and Smith combine a study of Washington?s thought with a copious appendix containing the full texts of his letters, speeches, and official documents on issues of church and state. They present his views chronologically, devoting a chapter to each stage of his career: young regimental officer, colonial legislator, commander in chief of the Continental Army, head of the Constitutional Convention, and president of the United States. An epilogue explains how Jefferson?s separationist perspective achieved its disproportional influence on the modern Supreme Court. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Madison, in fact, had an exquisite sense of the separate jurisdiction of religion and government, and he shared Jefferson' belief in a high wall of separation between the two. He spoke of a "perfect separation" and believed that "religion and Government will exist in greater purity, without...the aid of Government." As for the phrase "national religion," he used it to describe federal use of public funds for the support of interfaith invocation and benediction, congressional and military chaplains, and a law incorporating a church in the District of Columbia, all of which he believed to be unconstitutional. His antagonism to government-assisted religion was extreme, even as to trifling matters." -Origins of the Bill of Rights, Leonard W. Levy, pages 85-86, lines 29-46.
The Baptists, a dissenting group in England, were against having a state church (an established church) and wrote Jefferson: "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."
Jefferson wrote back to demonstrate that he also did not support a Federally Established Church (even though several states at the time had established churches). Jefferson wrote, "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Of course, this did not mean that the public square had to be sterilized of all religious references nor that the government must take a stance that God cannot be referenced in any way nor can the government support religion as a general concept. Because different states had established different churches, they did not want the Federal Government choosing one of them over the others and the Baptists wanted no state or the Federal Government to establish any church.
Well, this has led to huge debates over the centuries and the Supreme Court has referenced Jefferson's letter more than two dozen times to get the outcome they wanted. Justice Antonin Scalia noted in Lee v. Weissman that the phrase is used as a bulldozer to eradicate religion from public life.
Shouldn't we ask why Jefferson's phrase in a mere letter to some small constituency should become so dispositive in our understanding of the first amendment? After all, its language simply says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Does that sound like a mandate for eradication from public life to you? What did our other founders think about this subject?
This wonderful book by Tara Ross and Joseph C. Smith Jr. looks at what George Washington said and did about religion. He was a uniquely powerful figure in his time and is mightily revered even today. One of his most admired qualities was his judgment. He was a man who was careful in all his actions. He was dignified and careful in the way he fulfilled his responsibilities and duties. So much so, that he did not step into this debate directly. However, we can examine his life and how he acted in his public life to see if we can understand his thoughts and beliefs on the role of religion in public life.
The authors have divided this examination of Washington's public life and words into two sections. Part One has six chapters that cover his actions as commander of the Virginia Regiment, Member of the House of Burgesses, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, Father of a New Nation (1784-1789), President prior to the first amendment (1789-1791), and President after the first amendment (1792-1797). In their conclusion to Part One, the authors note, "Washington viewed America as unique. Its citizens may enjoy the benefits of public religion, while individuals are left free to hold their own religious beliefs." Note that as late as March 3, 1797 Washington wrote to the Clergy of Different Denominations near Philadelphia, "Believing as I do, that Religion and Morality are the essential pillars of Civil society, I view, with unspeakable pleasure, that the harmony and brotherly love which characterizes the Clergy of different denominations, as well in this, as in other parts of the United States; exhibiting to the world a new and interesting spectacle, at once the pride of our Country and the surest basis of our universal Harmony." Note that it was in having all religions together in the public square with each exhibiting true tolerance to all others that Washington praised, not having each citizen check his religion at the gate to the public square!
They admit we cannot know what views Washington would hold on the issues of our day, but that he obviously saw the benefits of religion as real while avoiding discord as much as possible. There is also an epilogue called "Whence Jefferson's Wall?" and note that early Americans would likely be surprised that the roles of Jefferson and Washington are reversed in our time from their relative esteem at the founding. They would have given much more weight to Washington's views. Maybe we should at least take a look at them.
Part Two is 128 pages of documentary evidence of Washington's writings referencing religion as part of his public correspondence. They are divided into five chapters covering the same periods Part One. There are also extensive notes and an index.
An excellent book that I commend to each and every person.
Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI
Thus, it has long frustrated traditional thinkers that Jefferson's "wall of separation" language, meant to protect churches from government interference, has been taken out of context and used to supplant the founders' vision of government support for religion.
Authors Ross and Smith have properly shifted the focus from Jefferson to Washington. They point out that Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention, and was not in the Congress for the debates over the First Amendment; thus his understanding of the drafters' intent is of secondary importance. By contrast, George Washington was both the President of the Constitutional Convention and the President of the United States during the First Amendment debates and ratification; thus his understanding of the drafters' intent is of primary importance.
Ross and Smith carefully document George Washington's firm conviction, expressed throughout his life, that the government must actively support monotheism, rather than be a neutral and secular bystander. Thus, in his 1795 Thanksgiving Proclamation, President Washington reminded the country of its duty "to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience."
By placing the focus on Washington's views, the authors have helped to restore the monotheistic framework of all the founders (including Jefferson). To avoid the lure of tyranny, the government should respect the God-given rights of its citizens, and should support the monotheism that informs our republic.