<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A hard book to argue with
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent primer
Review: If you're looking for a repository of arguments against the proposition that the US is a "Christian Nation," this is the book for you. The authors do a fine job of presenting well-researched, reasonable, and calmly presented material, and by the time you're done with this slim rebuttal, you will either agree or at least have doubts. I don't think a more resounding endorsement could be said regarding what is essentially a book on law. Part history, part claim, this is the book you need if you want ammunition, and the book you'll want if you're interested in the history of religion in the US.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent primer
Review: If you're looking for a repository of arguments against the proposition that the US is a "Christian Nation," this is the book for you. The authors do a fine job of presenting well-researched, reasonable, and calmly presented material, and by the time you're done with this slim rebuttal, you will either agree or at least have doubts. I don't think a more resounding endorsement could be said regarding what is essentially a book on law. Part history, part claim, this is the book you need if you want ammunition, and the book you'll want if you're interested in the history of religion in the US.
Rating: 
Summary: Dispelling the Myths
Review: One of the most common misperceptions about the United States is that it is a Christian nation. It is not. It never was, nor was it ever intended to be. American citizens have been spoonfed a false nostalgia for a "better time" when religion, specifically, Christianity, was the "center" of our government and home life: that has been the propaganda of "freedom of religion". Early settlers were a despotic lot, intolerant and stringent in their views. Modern-day evangelists would not have been welcome in New England. Quakers were hanged for their beliefs. There was little freedom of anything, let alone religion. This book gives a resounding answer to those who are fond of saying "the phrase 'separation of church and state' doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution". Well, neither does "right to a fair and speedy trial", but it is part of the common lexicon and a sacred principle of our society. If you've ever wondered what the truth really is about the first amendment and the role of religion in the founding of the United States, this book is an excellent place to start your search.
Rating:
Summary: a balanced,historical overview:good for churches
Review: The efforts presented here by the two Cornell University professors are thoroughly disappointing in two respects. For anyone who has sat though a high school government class, it presents nothing new-the authors mechanically highlighted the historical realities and background surrounding America's founding. More disturbingly, however, the authors chose to corruptly use their editorial voice, broadly tossing anyone who disagree into the "Religious Right" camp and irresponsibly attributing to them words such as moron, shameless, and junkies. Absurd generalizations and vicious attacks are not signs of good, or even authentic, scholarship. I would have to submit that they had wasted their time, and certainly mine.
The book starts out by asking the question "is America a Christian nation" without exploring the various meanings and implications of the term Christian Nation. A Christian Nation may mean different things to different people; for some, it may denote a country who is governed by a Christian-theocratic apparatus, while for others, it may simply describe a nation whose culture and character are not-so-lightly flavored by Christian symbols and languages. The question they brought before the audience here is essentially a loaded one because the authors had already presupposed a conclusion before they began the erudite process of genuine inquiry. It is their position that they "will be happy when religion has the same rights in the public sphere as General Motors, no more and no less." The "proper role" of religion, then, is essentially a private enterprise not unlike that of GM. This sentiment produces a couple of interesting ramifications. First, to assign a role to religion vis-à-vis political life (or in their term, the public sphere) demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding what religion fundamentally means. Religion, by definition, stands for what is of the "ultimate importance." This entails a comprehensive claim to one's life in scope and superlative claim to one's loyalty in degree. With these demands, religious life necessarily comes prior to political life and, indeed, to one's participation in the public sphere. Occupations, status, and membership in various groups are but different roles that one plays in the confines of religious life. To speak of religion in terms of its role vis-à-vis some greater whole is to flip flop this proper relationship that I have shown here and would, therefore, be incongruous. Secondly, General Motors is commonly perceived to be a pillar, an icon, of American capitalism. With annual revenue of 167 billion dollars, it ranks second among Fortune Magazine's list of 500 largest corporations in this country. It is interesting that the authors chose to ascribe the same degree of status (and implicitly prestige) as religion to this corporate giant. Consciously or not on their part, this confirms the thesis that I have been attempting to advance for the past years that capitalism has, indeed, achieved a sort of religio-paradigmatic claim on our lives not unlike Christianity had generations before. Contemporary capitalism has essentially trumped Christianity to become the dominant religion of our time; ultimately, it is financial considerations that determine the directions that we take and drive (pun intended) the choices that we make, not the notions of virtue, not the notions of the good, and certainly not the notions of sacrificial love.
After an introduction by way of the posing of what I would consider a loaded question, the book embarks on discussing the standard Woodian curriculum concerning church-state separation and its American heritage. This discussion was not conducted in any systematic way, nor was any attempt made by the authors to chronologically or ideologically organizes the various topics. Their thematic treatment seem arbitrary at times with no coherence among the different sections being discussed. It seemed as if this part of the book was secondary on their agenda and was only hastily put together to fill pages. The first matter that the book highlighted was the secular countenance of the United States Constitution. The authors were correct in noting that the constitution does not invoke God's providence and that the inclusion and discussions surrounding the Pinckney provision of "no religious test" were evidences for the founders' attempt at religious neutrality. They were also correct in identifying the non-doctrinaire religion of deism and the intellectual rigor of the enlightenment as indispensable and powerful forces among many of the legislative elite. But what the authors fail to mention, and this failure imparts the impression that the dawn of the republic was marked by blatant irreligiousness, was the fact that religious voices were by no means extinct during the founding. In Washington's farewell address, for example, he counseled that the new constitution was written, and would only work, for a religious people. Patrick Henry (mentioned later in unrelated circumstances), who went so far as to propose a bill to levy tax, which would support all Christian churches, may also serve as an example. Let me make clear that I am not suggesting the founding was the result of religious intents like the evangelicals' revisionist history would have us believe. What I am proposing is for these academics to make an effort in presenting all sides of the story and provide a more balanced, responsible accounts of historical episodes.
Rating:
Summary: Dead right
Review: This book does a perfect job of demolishing the myth of the so-called religious foundings of our country, and it does so without resorting to attacks or political bias. In fact, I think the authors tended to lean to the right politically, but that is just opinion. The book, however is excellent and should be required reading for students in high school. Of course, that would probably violate the church/state separation that the Constitution protects. Interesting how the First Amendment that the Religious Right disdains actually protects them and their views. Pathetic.
Rating:
Summary: a balanced,historical overview:good for churches
Review: This book is both a polemical argument in favor of church-state separation and a valuable history lesson.As an evangelical who happens to believe in the classic Jeffersonian doctrine as well,it never ceases to amaze me how politically-charged TV preachers argue out of both sides of their mouths.On the one hand,America is a Christian nation.But on the other,we have fallen away from God! So which is it?If America were truly a Christian nation,Las Vegas and Atlantic City would close because no one would go. [Adult] magazines,adult videos, and strip clubs would cease to exist because there would be no market.There would be no need for "blue laws" because almost everyone would be in church all day on Sunday anyway,and no one would shop.However,the authors point out successfully that America was as heathen a nation as one could get in 1787.There is far more interest in Christianity,religion,and general spirituality today than there was in the Founders' America or at any time during the 19th century.The authors do a wonderful job of explaining the pro-Jeffersonian views of many religious people during the election season of 1800.American Baptists were at one time some of the most able defenders of the concept of a religiously neutral state.Kramnick and Moore also explain the importance of separationism to religion as a theological concern.Two of the towering figures in the history of this debate:Roger Williams and John Locke,were profoundly committed Christians.In fact,Williams believed that the notion of separationism flowed quite naturally from a consistent predestinarian Calvinism.I'll end here by saying that this book is a gem,a must-read.It is worth reading over and over.
Rating:
Summary: Well researched and presented.
Review: This book presents a well presented argument for the clear seperation of church and state in America. It draws from history, and touches upon some key moments in the development of our Constitution and the history and ideas that went into creating this purely secular document. This is presented against a backdrop that highlights the framers of the constitution and what they were intending. This is a pretty unbiased book in the sense that it does not get into the debate over the value or truth of religion, only how it fits in to the American government through the Constitution. In a day and age where most people's concept of history comes from the mouths of demagogues instead of from the truth, this book provides an enlightened perspective on a very important social issue. One thing also you learn from this book - there is nothing being said today by the forces trying to make our country into a theocracy that hasn't been said before.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read
Review: 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.
<< 1 >>
| 
