The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness Paperback – February, 1997

This is history that every American should know but way too many don't. I don't remember reading about the Treaty of Tripoli article 11 maybe it did and I don't remember, but otherwise a good historical book that every American should read.

Excellent product quality as described.

This is a difficult book to write a review about simply because one does not know where to start. The book was authored by two Cornell University professors and comes off as a scholarly critique, however upon closer examination you realize that it is nothing but a façade for factual errors. The lack of footnotes and the use of out of context quotes is farcical coming from two professors. They use many one or two word quotes such as these "discrimination" (38) "oppressive measure" (68) "infernal infamy" (103) "left wing" (112) "spiritual church" (122) and on it goes. Just what are you supposed to gain from the fact that the founders might have penned "oppressive measure". Another hurdle in reviewing this book is where do you start with all the inaccuracies. It is easy to point out factual errors but the authors of this book have done something ingenious in their writings. They have mixed factual inaccuracies with their editorial opinions giving the appearance to the reader that even the founding fathers agreed with THEIR thesis. So in reality all they have done is peppered their opinions with the 2 worded quotes attributed to the founding fathers, somehow conveying historicity to their opinions. While it does not take a genius to figure this out, all you need to do is read a few other reviews to find out just how many people were so easily brainwashed by this book.

The book is also replete with ad homein attacks, arguments from silence and strawmen attacks. I personally did not expect this from two highly regarded professors and I think it shows some childishness. It would be easy to rip apart the factuality of the book if one had more space instead, I will just focus on their Chapter 4 where we are introduced to John Locke. The authors opine that "all important figures of the founding generation. . . . were disciples of Locke." (72) and "Locke's convictions form in fact the foundation of the American political creed" (72) and "The Declaration of Independence reads like a paraphrase of Locke" (72). The authors further on in this chapter portray Locke as a atheist who believes "the church thus had no special or central place in the secular politics of the founders' liberalism" (77). And on it goes, but who is John Locke? Was he as prominent an author as portrayed? Moreover, was he anti-religion?

First of all John Locke was born in 1632 and graduated Christ Church College with a masters degree in 1658. He wrote several books including Two Treatises of Government (1690), The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695) and A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity (1697). It was these last two books that decimates the authors opinions that John Locke was not religious, in fact he was a Christian Apologist. However, it was his writing on Treatises of Government that the founding fathers drew the theory of social compact. It was also through these writings that they gained the insight of civil law being grounded in Natural Law. And Natural Law according to Locke is simply Divine (God Inspired) Law whose moral principals can be inferred by anyone. Because John Locke relied so heavily on the bible in developing his political theories it is not surprising to find that he cited the bible a total of 1,514 different times in his Two Treatises of Government; a small fact that the authors of this book omitted. Accordingly, if one were to give an example of Lockean thinking probably the quote "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. . . " would be the best example.

The last point about John Locke is just how important was he? The Authors contend he was the most important author to the founding fathers but all we have to do is look at who was cited the most in the founding fathers writing. From 1760 - 1805 just who did the founding father quote the most?

#1 THE BIBLE 34% of all quotes

#2 Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu 8.3%

#3 Sir William Blackstone 7.9%

#4 John Locke 2.9%

As you can see there was some disingenuous on the part of the authors to portray Mr. Locke as the most important scholar of the day. This simple critique of one chapter in the book shows you the inaccuracies that are portrayed repeatedly throughout the book. The bigger question is why do it? Are these two professors trying to pull the wool over everyone eyes for a reason, or have they themselves been brainwashed? By examining their sources that they used for their book we note something interesting. They have listed 27 books and not one of them was an original source document. The authors have culled all their information from current thinking, just look at this breakdown of when the books the authors cited were published:

1999 - 1990 8 cites

1989 - 1980 7 cites

1979 - 1970 4 cites

1969 - 1960 6 cites

1959 - 1955 2 cites

The sad fact is this book is a compilation of modern day scholarship discussing what happened 200+ years ago. Not one original source document was cited so just how could the authors understand what the original intent of the founding fathers were without going back to original sources is beyond comprehension of any historian.

This book should be avoided at all costs, go to your library and check out some books written by the founding father or by their contemporaries if you want a accurate picture of the history of this great country.

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.