Founding of the Church Books

Carroll's book is very influential. He argues that men, women, and God make an impact on history. We are even seing this today. There is no other tme in our life where the Church has been persecuted this bad (scandals, and now the Davinci Code) For many of you "DAVINCI LOVERS", this is a great book from an orthodox Christian point of view.I highly recommend it.

At last! After literally years of reading and perusing dreary histories of the Christianity evidently written by nonbelievers, I finally found this set.

As far as I know, the History of Christendom is the only competent history in English that is written from the perspective of an actual Christian ("Triumph" was well meaning, but not very good history, and I was unable to finish it.) The astounding truth and significance of the incarnation gives meaning and excitement to every word of the text, which is packed with good reliable information, including wonderful footnotes.

This is the set you must have for yourself and your children.

The first third of the book is great, full of excitement, in the typical style of its author. The big picture of the empires evolving in succesion up to the time of Christ, told fluently, minding the key events, without dwelling too long in secondary events. Some of these pages make us really wonder about possibilities that remain obscure in the past: it's what we don't know that intrigues us, rather than what we know. The main talent of this author is his ability to pose the right questions, the intriguing possibilities... An example: "The two faiths existed (Abraham's and Akhenaten's in Egypt) in such very different spheres that any bridge between them must have been close to supernatural ... if inspiration there was, it came from Israel and the God of Israel to Akhenaten."

Even more puzzling is the comment he makes on the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides (ca. 500 b.C.) and a quote from him: "The only tale which yet remains to tell of the Way is that it is; and many signs there are upon this path that it is Unborn and is without destruction."

His chapter on the Greeks and the Peloponnesian War is superb. It's not just the facts that he tells, it's the connections that he makes between parallel events, the implications that poorer narrators always miss. The chapter on Alexander, I sincerely recommend for the same reasons: delicious.

Up to here great. Then it slows down. The tone changes. After the Resurrection of Christ, with the beginning of the persecutions of the Christians in the Roman Empire, the author seems to have set to write a different book. Granted that his point of view is totally Catholic, with not even a chance for other denominations, but he has know forgotten to use the background scenarios and the main events as the milestones in his story. Rather, he now picks the little events, a succession of popes, persecutions, tortures, schisms, theological disputations, etc. and brings them to the foreground. I am not dismissing the importance and truthfulness of the things happened, only pointing out that he has changed the focus and style completely. Basically, it is a Catholic hagiography to the end of the book. It's just a repetition of facts only with different people tortured and in different times and places. If it's due to his Catholic exclusive point of view -which I respect, though don't agree with in many aspects- he could have been less narrow, for the benefit of all history enthusiasts.

Professor Carroll declares at the outset that he intends to trace the "reign of Christ" as it "appears as a social, cultural and poliltical presence in the world," and that he intends to do so from a Roman Catholic perspective. His history, alas, is all too often a struggle to justify, first, the historicity of all books of the Old and New Testament and then of all traditions and stories about the first centuries of the Christian church (the sort of thing which those of us old enough to remember were fed a steady diet of in Catholic grade school in the 1950s). So it is that he spends three pages attempting to validate stories about the martyrdom of St Cecilia while he rushes through in a paragraph the profound social and economic changes endured by the Roman empire in the third century, and dismisses a 150-year evolution of the Roman military system in a sentence. Second, while claiming to be a faithful Roman Catholic, the professor feels free to question the orthodoxy of his fellows. With some dismay I noted that his annotated bibliography contains none of the works of Father Raymond E. Brown, perhaps the greatest American Catholic Scripture scholar of the 20th century, and even charges that one of those edited by Father Brown, "The Jerome Biblical Commentary," has tendencies toward heresy. How can the professor justify making such a judgment? Father Brown's works always contained a nihil obstat and imprimatur (declarations by Catholic authorities that the work is free from doctrinal or moral error), whereas the five volumes of the professor's history published thus far have neither. That, and the restriction of the works in his bibliography almost entirely to those published before 1965 and his annotations, suggests that Professor Carroll is one of those Catholics who believe that their church has been in serious error since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65 but cannot say so publicly lest they openly contradict the tradition and authority to which they profess loyalty and obedience. A shame, too, since serious Catholic readers are in need of a multi-volume history of their church and its place in history, one which reflects the best of solid contemporary scholarship without being ponderous. This, however, is not it. (And for the reader who is wondering: yes, I am a Catholic; I have been for sixty-two years; I am orthodox in both my beliefs and my practice; and I have always read a great deal.)

To understand the background of Western Civilization, one would be well advised to read Dr. Carroll's "Founding of Christendom", but one must do so clearly understanding the author's unique perspective. The book undertakes to cover Christendom virtually from pre-historic times to the reign of Constantine, the Great in 324 A.D. And the work is delivered in a style that is both enjoyable and edifying. Truly, this is a history of our Civilization that reads like a novel. In particular, I was amazed at the description of the Church in the first couple of centures following the Resurrection, the time of the Martyrs. This section is absolutely great!

There is a very necessary qualification to this recommendation. Throughout the first half of the book, there is constant referral to the "chosen people". I found this rather surprising in a writer with Dr. Carroll's academic and theological pretensions. Certainly, the faith of Israel prior to the Incarnation prefigured Christianity. But, by the time of the ministry of Christ, this Scriptural faith had already been polluted by the machinations of the Pharisees, those against whom our Lord and Savior inveighed throughout the Gospels. Of late, we have come to understand much better Dr. Carroll's perspective, as opposed to his pretensions. On the cover of this book and of all of his histories, he proudly displays the sigil of the profoundly evil Knights Templar, demonstrating that he is either in sympathy with or an active member of the various masonic cults that emanated from these miscreants. Masonic allegiance such as this would not be tolerated knowingly in the Church of the pre-Vatican II era. It is only during the modernist times of our present that one such as Dr. Carroll could even continue with such a pretense. This apparent allegiance of his explains the otherwise very puzzling emphasis in the corpus of his books. That being said and understood, Carroll's works are worthwhile, if placed in proper perspective.

First off I love this book. It is conscice, easy to read, and suprisingly interesting. I took this book out from my city library (I totally have to put in a good word for libraries right now. All you do is buy one measly membership card and you have access to a practically endless supply of books? So rad!). Anywhoo I chose to read this particular book because I am currently taking a class on the revolutionary war at my local community college. We have talked about Locke, Paine, and the Englightenment in depth. The philosophical portion of the class has been my favorite part so far. I checked this book out of the library because I thought that it may be useful for an extensive research paper that I have just begun preparing for; the fact that the subject matter really intrests me is just a sweet bonus. This book made a solid and compelling case for the argument that our country was not founded on Christian values but rather on the principle that the line between church and state should be clearly delineated. I totally recommend this book. Before reading Moral Minority I was required to read the Autobiography of Bejamin Franklin. That book left me disgusted by its famous subject and his fellow founding fathers. Moral Minority has renewed my interest in our country's early history and has helped to redeem Franklin in my eyes (somewhat!). In closing... read this book!!!

I highly recommend this one, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Found it to be quite informative and easy to read. Hard to put down. A necessity for the history buff. Every youngster in school should read it, and especially those who are confused about the Bill of Rights and why it was put in the Constitution. Some readers may want to follow up with a copy of the Federalist Papers, though this book excerpts the pertinent parts very well.

That the Founding Fathers were skeptical about Christianity is something that's supposed to shock us. But skepticism has always been the counterpart to religion. The thieves who plundered the tombs of the pharaohs in ancient Egypt were certainly skeptical of their society's beliefs, and Job thought his tragedies made him fit to judge God. If Jefferson is to be applauded for his skepticism about Christianity then his ownership of slaves only proves that his "enlightened" morality failed him - and the entire country as well. Brooke Allen cannot have it both ways. If we are to consider their private religious beliefs, which do not form part of our written laws, then their moral failings with regards to slavery must be part of the record as well. The political expediency they exhibited in not dealing with slavery would cost about 600,000 lives in the Civil War. Whatever personal grievances the Founding Fathers had about Christianity is simply irrelevant. It's the equivalent of asking whether Madison or Hamilton would legalize internet gambling.

Many are unaware of that our Founding Fathers refused to establish a "Christian" nation and fought vehemently the idea of a religious test or national religion. The consequence of a secular goverment is the paradoxical flowering of religious expression. America remains one of the most religious nations on Earth despite the attitudes of the "ruling classes" reflected in the Northeast. With the loss of political, financial and social power those views have diminished and the civil ecumencalism that once characterized our nation is no more. The American experiment was unique in the quality and quantity of enlightened intellectuals at this time in history. One could almost infer the hand of Privdence (lol). As sons of the Enlightenment and witnesses to Europe's religious persecution, they came up with a truly revolutionary idea - religious freedom (as opposed to tolerance). One could worship where one wished OR not worship at all. What mattered was civil duty and obedience to civil law that guaranteed rights for the minority in every situation. The Constitution was the summation of the Enlightenment with its emphasis on checks and balances, moeration, natural law and individual freedom.

Ms Allen gives us a brief biographty of six revolutionary "greats" - Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Madison. From their own words she infers that all were, at best, deists though for political reasons most were affiliated with a church. Their heroes were men like Locke, Adam Smith, Aristotle (NOT Plato), Joseph Priestly...all men of moderation and rationality. One cannot help but smile at Franklin who, in his popularity with friend and foe alike, reminds one of the great 19th century atheist, Robert Ingersoll, who was chosen to nominate James Blaine for President at the 1876 Republican convention. Washington remains a towering model of silent virtue. Jefferson, a vindictive hypocrite, believed his secular university was his most important accomplishment. Adams, my hero, was willing to change his core beliefs as he matured. Madison's zeal for religious freedom was unsurpassed and Hamilton buttressed Washington with intellectual vigor.

So why not five stars? First was the repitition -lots and lots of it. Second was the brevity - it was more a bookette than a book. Third and the worst was snide remarks against current politicians that was funny the first time but by the fifth it grows weary. She describes historical events in current political terms..."political right", "Fundamentalists", etc. The remarks diminish the book and its message as it appears partisan. Following the biographies was a description of the social and intellectual world of the time. This is important since no one derives their beliefs in a vaccuum.

Politicians have long used religion for political purposes. One recalls Clinton speaking in churches, invoking God, "preaching to the saved", publicly turning to preachers & prayer when caught in adultry. Bush's faith based initiaves cross the line no matter how well intended and the use of ideology over science is disturbing. Ashcroft's Bible studies are unacceptable. Even freethinkers like Howard Dean feel the need to prove their faith. In his case it was the hilarious comment that Job was his favorite book of the NEW Testament (lol). Men and women who never spoke of faith suddenly "get religion" on the campaign trail, "sharing" their most personal beliefs to the audience at hand. This will only stop when we recognize the secular nature of our republic and its founders.

Brooke Allen's 'Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers' could hardly be more necessary coming as it does during the reign of a President who uses federal funds to directly promote religion and a Supreme Court that refuses to allow review of same (Hein v. FFRF).

As Allen demonstrates in this tidy little dynamo of a book our primary founders were men of the Enlightenment, skeptical of faith and devoted to reason. Allen's subjects are Washington, Franklin, John Adams, Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton. Allen presents six biographical essays focusing as her preface states on their "attitudes toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular".

A final chapter that takes up nearly a quarter of the book's 183 pages gives the reader a concise summary of the Enlightenment background as well the 16th-17th century religious turmoil in England from which these leaders ultimately sprang. We read of David Hume refuting intelligent design in 1757 and of retaining a `deliberate doubt' due to lack of evidence. Hume concluded that "the whole is a riddle, an aenigma, an inexplicable mystery. Doubt, uncertainty, suspense of judgment appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny." One only wishes that Hume had lived to see Darwin blast away these doubts a century later.

Allen does not uncover much new, but she brings it together in an imminently interesting and admirably concise way. George Washington does not give up any secrets, but the evidence suggests at least by strong negative inference that Washington was not a Christian or at most a very half-hearted one. He generally declined to take the sacrament and when a preacher called him on this behavior as setting a bad example for others Washington agreed and never attended church on sacramental Sunday again! (Perhaps more interesting, Allen discloses that most worshippers at least in Washington's church typically departed before taking the sacrament).

An excellent antidote to the nonsense passed around as 'common knowledge' these days. This reader appreciates more and more a writer who can make her point without drowning the reader in needless repetition. Allen succeeds. Very highly recommended.

This was given as a gift to someone so I've not read the book, but I knew the person was very interested in getting a copy.

In a word, BRILLIANT!!!! We seem to be surrounded today by people who have wrongly interpreted the intentions of the nation's founders regarding religion. Novak decisively eradicates the false theories being pushed on our society, even by our own judicial system. Novak superbly presents the case that the founders intent was not to eradicate religious belief, but rather to avoid divisions of religious sentiment and find common ground among the Hebrew and Christian faiths.

When examining the founders, many fail to recognize what life was like under the Anglican Establishment, which the founders sought to end. While being against the national establishment of a secular religion, the founder's went so far as to support the state establishment of such.

While the first half of the book examines the intent of the founders, the second half takes a look at some of the founders who have been often overlooked by historians for their religious views.

Overall, this book is clear and accurate. I was thoroughly impressed by the authors' research. The book reads extremely well. I only had two complaints about the book, I wished it were another thousand pages, as I absolutely did not want this book to end, and the font size was a little small, making it difficult for us old codgers.

This is a book I will keep on the bookshelf by my desk, as I am sure I will reference this magnificent work often. I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone interested in learning the true intent behind the separation of church and state.

One-winged birds can't fly. That's why Michael Novak, the author of "On Two Wings," asserts that the history of the United States has been taught incorrectly for the past 100 years. The American Republic took flight on two healthy wings, one called Faith and the other called Reason. American history, as taught now in our schools, would have students believe our Founders set flight with one wing only: Reason.

Novak, the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy and Director of Social and Political Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, makes a strong case for both wings working together. But today the wing of Faith is the one too severely clipped to work as it should.

For instance, most people today believe that the Enlightenment was more critical to the American Founders than the Old Testament. The historical record shows that it was the Old Testament that was far more important than the Enlightenment.

That's because the Founders held a "Hebrew metaphysic," which included the concepts of time having a beginning and an end, and of final judgment in the hereafter for human actions in this life. The Founders agreed with the Hebrews, that time is linear, not cyclical, as the ancient pagans believed. And the Declaration refers to God as "the Supreme Judge of the world."

This "metaphysic" - a mix of theology and philosophy - gave the Founders a wonderful nomenclature in which to express political ideas. The Founders wisely shunned specific theological terms, such as Savior, Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and used instead the imagery of the Old Testament. In this way, they charted a course for common ground. This book should be required reading in college political science programs.

Citizens who have been led to believe that the Founding Fathers intended to establish a republic free from religion need to read this book and the cited sources. From Jefferson to the Presbyterian minister Witherspoon (who was president of Princeton), all believed that religon and the unfettered public worship of God was vital to a free and moral society. Read this book and learn what the men who fashioned our form of goverment really believed. It's not what the revisionists would have us think.

In a word, BRILLIANT!!!! We seem to be surrounded today by people who have wrongly interpreted the intentions of the nation's founders regarding religion. Novak decisively eradicates the false theories being pushed on our society, even by our own judicial system. Novak superbly presents the case that the founders intent was not to eradicate religious belief, but rather to avoid divisions of religious sentiment and find common ground among the Hebrew and Christian faiths.

When examining the founders, many fail to recognize what life was like under the Anglican Establishment, which the founders sought to end. While being against the national establishment of a secular religion, the founder's went so far as to support the state establishment of such.

While the first half of the book examines the intent of the founders, the second half takes a look at some of the founders who have been often overlooked by historians for their religious views.

Overall, this book is clear and accurate. I was thoroughly impressed by the authors' research. The book reads extremely well. I only had two complaints about the book, I wished it were another thousand pages, as I absolutely did not want this book to end, and the font size was a little small, making it difficult for us old codgers.

This is a book I will keep on the bookshelf by my desk, as I am sure I will reference this magnificent work often. I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone interested in learning the true intent behind the separation of church and state.

I just finished reading SO HELP ME GOD and have already begun a second read-through. I am so excited by what I've read. I'd like to thank the author for writing such a wonderful and enlightening book! It's clearly the work of a mind that knows the history of the period and the historical persons very well, and yet it's a more exciting read that most of the historical studies I've read over the years.

At a number of points in the book, I couldn't believe what I was reading--did John Adams really say that? What would a three-minute sentence in a State of the Union address actually look like?, etc...--so checked the sources in the back of the book. And since I have instant access to a wonderful library, I was able to get some of the sources the author used and read the context around some of the quotes that he used and see that 3-minute sentence for myself.

What a wonderful introduction to the challenges the first five U.S. presidents faced regarding the church-state question/nexus/interaction/relationship!

I look forward to enjoying a second read of this book (probably read aloud to myself so I can savor the writing from my own lips to my own ears) and to using some of the insights I've gained from this author's amazing labor of love.

If questions about the relationship between church and state are of interest to you, and you'd like to hear more about the early challenges we faced in the early years of our government, this book is made for you.

A wonderful read. And a page turner at that. I can't recommend it too highly. It's that good.

Church has given us an excellent description and analysis of the stances on religion of the first presidents of the US, from Washington through Monroe. The degree of their public religious orthodoxy, and writings that might provide additional clues, are described. Church makes a very convincing case that this issue was used politically by both federalists and republicans. Jefferson's religious liberalism and unorthodoxy were well-known, for example, and yet he never attended services more regularly than when he was president. This is where I would have liked Church's writing to be a bit more cutting. While he describes some of what could be described as hypocrisy, he does little to describe how the stated positions on religion affected day to day behavior. To return to Jefferson, how could his stated admiration for Jesus' ethical principles coexist with blatantly unethical (possibly treasonous) behavior such as covertly paying Callendar to slander federalist opponents while he served in the administration? We don't get an analysis, but it is simply stated that he had a complicated mind and chose to ignore the uncomfortable. That would be the only additional issue I would have liked to see Church spend more time on, the link between stated ethical principles and behavior. Additionally, as another reviewer pointed out, the structure of referencing his sources is not easy to follow. All in all, however, a very worthwhile and enlightening work.

The subtitle describes pretty well the content of this book, which aims to describe the first great cultural war in American political history. Pursuant to the author, the ideals of liberty and order will coexist in tension as they have in the nation's womb from the beginning. In that line, he thinks that today's US Christian campaigners and their secular critics seem almost timid compared to the warring American dreamers and would-be saviours who battled for votes in the American early republic.

What I like the most is the way F. Church, with a stroke of his pen, vividly depicts the first five American President's religious stands, often making interesting parallels between them . E.g.:

Washington. Just how religious was George Washington? The short answer is: "Not very" . He had much of the principle, little of the sentiment of religion. He was more moral than pious.

John Adams. The Protestant ethic was bred in his bone. He didn't think like a true believer but he felt like a true believer.

Thomas Jefferson. If Adams was skeptical about almost everything, Jefferson worshiped just as doggedly at the altar of reason and progress. He was a fundamentalist of the left, inflexible in his fidelity to rational religion. However, as devoted as Jefferson was to church-state separation, religion and politics mixed freely in Washington throughout his administration.

James Madison. Jefferson supported freedom of religion to protect the state from the church but also to free mind from the state while Madison sought to protect the state from the church by encouraging sectarian competition and seems to have been a reverent agnostic (in the gentlest sense of the word, i.e., "unknowing"), too modest to advance any claims of his own and respectful of the claims promoted by others.

James Monroe. His moral and religious character is closer in almost every respect to Washington's than to those of his senior partners in the Republican troika, Jefferson and Madison. He was a Stoic, a Mason, secular to the bone, conservative by nature, and not interested enough in religion to bother being disrespectful toward anyone's cherished beliefs.

...

A final insight Church garnered along the way is this: In America's early politics, religion, even when entered into the halls of government freely, wound up being manipulated for political gain. When church and state tucked into bed together, it was the church that ended up asking, "Will you respect me in the morning?", and the answer was almost always "No".

So I recommend it, my rate being between 4 (content) and 4 (pleasure, sometimes falling to 3, sometimes raising to 5).

Other books I would also recommend would be the following:

On the US: a) Religious history (interpreted sociologically): "The Churching Of America, 1776-2005: Winners And Losers In Our Religious Economy" by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; b) Political history (Democracy and its discontents): "The Rise of American Democracy. Jefferson to Lincoln" by Sean Wilentz.

On religion (published this very Fall): a) "Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief" by Rodney Stark (apologetic, brilliant and controversial); b) "Secular Age" by Charles Taylor (a fascinating voluminous social and intellectual history); c) "How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now" by James L. Kugel (extremely scholarly and easy to read, a combination difficult to find).

I was attracted to this book because of the Author and some prior experience I've had with other writings of his. The first book I reviewed here on Amazon was the Jefferson Bible with a forward by Forrest Church and I recall at the time being struck by the polarized reviews and voting patterns that I observed by those responding to that work and how much of it centered upon the importance of Jefferson's Bible and what it said about the religious views of that vital founding father and the original intent of the founders in terms of religion and its impact upon American society. I was struck at the time as to how easy it was for the different points of view to polarize with little middle ground and how focused the dissent was upon the point of view of the reviewer. It was almost as if their need to incorporate Jefferson or any Founding Father into their "camp" trumped objective history.

I read this book after having done more study and reading in the field, and in particular I read the entire correspondance between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and I was particularly interested in how well what I gathered from that primary source would compare with this secondary interpretation. In fact, based upon my conclusions from reading Church's take on Adams and Jefferson I was determined that I'd have a pretty good base on what to conclude on his information related to Washington, Madison and Monroe as I am not as familiar with their religious and constitutional views despite having done some reading in this field in the past as well.

My conclusion is that Church has a very good handle and makes a fair and reasonable presentation that to me rang true in those areas where I was equipped to make that observation.

Church is a Unitarian/Universalist Minister and it might be easy to dismiss him on that basis as biased toward finding religion wherever he looks. I found him to be reasonable in his treatment of each of the men and willing to deal objectively with their personal and public faith and willing to accept that being human, they at times were inconsistent and at times willing to make compromises to promote their own political careers and cater to the necessities of the day where religion was prevalent and entangled in public policy.

The only real complaint I have, and it is the basis for the 4 star evaluation rather than the 5 I would have given it if I could, is that although there are end notes that provide sources for the more serious reader to explore and check, the lack of in-text notation leaves the reader having to rely upon the author's judgment to a great degree. The emphasis is upon flow and readability and Church does a good job in this regard. I think people taking the time to read this focused a book are going to want to be able to see the sources without having to continually turn to the back to see if there is a source in the first place and then once located by page to determine where on the page the source is incorporated. Any serious reader wishing to use this book for resource or reference will find this a frustrating element.

Worth the time and effort to read and reasonably objective in my opinion.

Bart Breen

For those who think the first five presidents were devout Christians, the news is not good. Nor is the news good for those who think the country was non-religious. There was indeed a "culture war" going on and the arguments were not unlike today's insultfest. Also like today, mutual slanders were propagated by the media, the politicians, and the pulpit. Some things never change.

* Only Adams was a church-goer all his life. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison attended church when living in the White House, seldom otherwise. Monroe didn't go even when he was President. They all doubted the divinity of Christ but all utilized a semblance of faith when it fit their agenda. From the onset in American politics, religion ended up being manipulated for political gain.

* Washington scrupulously avoided the slightest hint of religious favoritism and would not abide any sectarian interference in the affairs of state. By the end of his second term, established church leaders were openly disenchanted with his ambiguous religious posture. He probably did say "So help me God" at his inauguration.

* There would have been no Bill of Rights if it weren't for the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. Madison and others thought a Bill of Rights was redundant but he needed their support for ratification of the Constitution. In exchange, he presented and fought for a Bill of Rights in the new Congress.

* The Federalist party (mainly northern) was a coalition between those who wanted a strong federal government and the existing controlling Christian denominations (Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists, Anglicans). The Democratic/Republican party (mainly southern) was a coalition between those influenced by the European Enlightenment (Jefferson, et al) and the minority sects who were not powerful in any state (Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Jews).

* Monroe was secular to the bone, too disinterested in religion to be disrespectful about anyone's cherished beliefs. His administration was the beneficiary of religious peace as the New England Federalist clerics lost their political franchise. States gradually relinquished support and entanglements with their pet denominations and churches doubled their enrollment. Separation of church and state appears to have helped religion flourish.

An Epilogue records the last days of each President and reminds us that dying memorably is an art. "Tis well," Washington affirmed, summing up his magnificent life in two tiny words. Monroe held on until July 4, 1831, the 55th anniversary of Independence Day. Unfortunately, Adams and Jefferson had done it first, July 4, 1826. Madison made his quieter exit six days before July 4, 1836.

Both sides mentioned in my opening paragraph cherry-pick their data to prove that the colonists and founding fathers were or weren't religious. This book settles the score. As usual, things are not black and white nor even gray - more like black and white paint mixed together, haphazardly stirred. Church is a lifelong scholar of early US history. He provides plenty of references and his assessments appear to this nonhistorian to be accurate. I guarantee you will be enthralled.

This very good book is a concise history of church-state relations in Colonial and Revolutionary America from the early British settlements to the election of 1800. Lambert describes the nature of early religous establishments, the increasing diversification of American religion, the impact of the Enlightenment and radical Whig ideology, and the emergence of church-state separation after the Revolution. There will be little new in this book for scholars of this period but this is definitely the best overview I have seen on this very contentious topic. Aimed at a broad audience, The Founding Fathers is written well, organized well, and is objective.
Lambert comes to this subject from an interesting perspective. His prior major work has been on the history of 18th century evangelism and his is an expert on Colonial religous practice. He particularly stresses that most of the colonies were founded originally with established churches and that establishment crumbled under the pressures of religous diversification. By the mid-18th century, the colonies contained a remarkably diverse set of Protestant sects and even some Catholics. This religous diversity, some of which arose from immigration and some from separatist movements within established churches, placed great strains on established churches. The mid-century Great Awakening resulted in further diversification and undermined the authority of the parish system throughout the colonies. Around the same time, the Enlightenment, with its Deistic views, and radical Whig ideology, with its emphasis on individual liberty, were becoming increasingly influential in the Colonies. All these factors converged to form a widespread belief that individuals, not the state, should determine religous faith. Individual churches would have to compete for adherents in a marketplace of ideas without the support of the state. These ideas eventually culminated in the post-Revolutionary separation of Church and State in the Federal Constitution. Separationism was supported most strongly by a coalition of relatively secular political leaders, like most of the Founders, and Protestant dissenters whose churches had suffered discrimination under the established churches in several colonies. This coalition believed correctly that religion was best served by being separated from the state. This was truly a revolutionary development and the USA was the first polity to enact church-state separation. Indeed, a number of European states still have established churches and almost all of them preserve a constitutionally sanctioned special relationship with one church. Lambert concludes by discussing the Presidential election of 1800, which some Federalists and sectarians framed as a referendum on Jefferson's unfitness to be President because of his deist-unitarian beliefs. Lambert argues convincingly that the election of 1800 acted as a referendum of sorts not just on Jefferson but also on church-state separation. Perhaps the only significant defect of this book is that the conclusion leaves one with the impression that the Church-State separation was settled after the election of 1800. It was not, and some of the more unattractive subsequent aspects of our history are consequences of imperfect separation. The Federal separation of Church and State applied originally only to the actions of the Federal government, some states continued with established churches into the 19th century. More important, state and local political power became vehicles for religous bigotry, notably abuse of public school systems in ways that infringed the rights of minority religions. One of the reasons we have a large system of Catholic private education is that 19th century Protestants used public schools to harass Catholics. Lambert demonstrates nicely that separation was engendered by the religous diversity of 18th century America. We have even more religous diversity today and separation continues to be a guarantee of a vibrant religous culture.
The issue of Church-State separation continues to be very contentious. Since many partisans in this debate appeal to the Revolutionary period to support their points of view, writing in this field can be emotionally charged. Lambert has clearly written this book in an effort to provide a fair and dispassionate presentation of what actually happened. Reflecting a broad consensus of knowledgeable historians, he has succeeded, though his conclusions will not be palatable for many on the religous right.

Lambert offers a rare erudite examination of the issue of religion at the founding of our nation. Given the heated partisan rhetoric coming from all sides in this debate, it is refreshing to hear a voice of moderation.

Although Lambert offers a compelling case for a secular government and pluralistic religious culture, such an argument, although cogent, may obscure an underlying problem among those who look to the past for direction on present-day policy: That which "was" is not necessarily "as should be."

Consider this: Our founders tolerated slavery; the subjugation of women in the spheres of education, occupation, and politics; legal disregard for the Native peoples, whose legal definition was left ambiguous, etc.

Is it not safe to assume that we have become a different society and culture since the late eighteenth century? Therefore, even IF the "Christian-nation" pseudo-historians could convincingly make their case, it does not follow that America SHOULD be a Christian nation today any more than we would conclude that slavery or disenfranchisement of women and blacks are acceptable features of our culture.

In the end, my response would be, "So what?" I have no antiquarian reactionary neuroses that compel me to embrace the ideas of past generations. Indeed, it is the lack of a compelling message that forces evangelicals to cherry-pick history to buttress their unpersuasive arguments.

Having said that, Lambert's book should be applauded for successfully undermining the simplistic, quote-mining, de-contextualizing, de-historicizing pretensions of fundamentalist revisionists who ransack history in search of only "useful" evidence.

Frank Lambert, professor of history at Purdue University, does an excellent job of surveying this complex topic over a 200-year period. He does so thoroughly, yet concisely, in only 296 pages. While making generalizations at times, he often illustrates his points with quotations from original sources of the time period.
He begins by criticizing extremists on both sides of the issue, and proceeds to present a balanced approach. However, as I will explain at the end of this review, he shows his bias at the end.
Lambert's thesis is this: America WAS first settled by people who wanted to make it a Christian nation, whether Puritans in New England, Anglicans in Virginia, or Quakers and others in Pennsylvania. These early founders had a vision of making America "a city on a hill," a model Christian commonwealth. However, two major influences led the founding fathers to establish a government that separated church and state. These two influences were the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening. Men like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, who were influenced by the Enlightenment, felt that men should be free to use their own reason in matters of religion. The Baptists and others who benefitted from the rapid growth of "free" churches in the Great Awakening were persecuted by established churches and wished to have no established church, so they joined with men like Jefferson in calling for separation of church and state.
Lambert shows that there was great division over these issues, and gives interesting anecdotes and quotations from both sides. He quotes frequently from religious leaders on both sides of the issue. However, near the end of the book he spends much more time quoting Republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and gives little space to Federalists like George Washington and John Adams. At one point, on page 161, Lambert implies that John Adams was a deist, even though biographies of Adams have shown him to be a devout Christian with a Puritan heritage.
Lambert shows his view in his conclusion, as he criticizes accomodationists such as Judge William Rehnquist and "religious right" preachers like Pat Robertson.
While Lambert gives both sides of the argument, he clearly leads the reader to his own separationist interpretation. Because the book is so full of useful information, I highly recommend it as a textbook on the subject, but let the reader understand that Lambert has his own bias, too.

I have to agree with the other reviewers here (like Jack Kessler below):

This is a book that should be read by BOTH pro-separationists and anti-separationists. Of all the books that I have read on the subject, this book was *refreshingly* honest, accurate and scholarly, not to mention, a rather enjoyable reading.

The author stays clear of attacking either pro-separationists or anti-separationists--I truly appreciated that. (Can I assume this man is a Christian, or at least a good man?) Its been awhile since I've read a book on this subject that was historically accurate and could be trusted because it does not come across as biased.

Even if I agreed with him for the most part, the author forced me to think about my own stance. As another reviewer stated, this man also addresses the issues and policies that are being debated about around the first amendment, some of which I did not understand as clearly until I read this book.

As the other reviewer here said, this book should be a *textbook* for everyone, because it shows some of the history that many of us Christians (on both ends of spectrum) don't know about.

The book even gave me a greater respect for our nation's founders, after learning about the issues they grappled with.

Of ALL the books on the subject, this is my favorite, and probably the only book that I would recommend as a MUST READ for people at both ends of the political spectrum! :)

Lambert's book provides a valuable overview of sectarian strife in early America. His examination of Adams' view of church-state relations was especially helpful.

In the intro, though, he claims to be writing a book that takes the middle road on church-state relations. Previous reviewers proved themselves highly suggestible readers in this regard, as his view of the Founders take on church and state is decidedly imbalanced. If you're going to write a book focusing on the Founders' two most vociferous separationists, at least present some truth in advertising.

* Lambert spends 70 pages on Jefferson and Adams and a mere 16 on Washington and Hamilton. Any coincidence that the former two were vociferous separationists, while the latter two were integrationists?

* Lambert doesn't once mention Washington's farewell address. Such an omission in a book on church-state relations defies comprehension, until you see that Lambert's agenda, contra claims, is to buttress contemporary support for a complete separation between government and religion.

* Lambert fails to apply the common distinction between state-established religion and civic religion to the modern debate.

* Instead, he finishes the book by providing a damning quote from Jerry Falwell and proceding to refute the televangelist. And again, in an omission that reveals his barely concealed agenda, Lambert provides no similar quote-and-refutation regarding today's separation absolutists. The implication in the Falwell quote is that integrationists are mostly establishmentarians rather than civic religionists.

Consider this book a useful supplement on certain aspects of the church-state issue in early America, especially on the importance of sectarian divisions. But don't buy the neutrality nonsense he offers in the intro. As happens with most professors today, Lambert's worldview so thoroughly dominates his profession that it can't help but emerge through even the most determined efforts to remain objective.

American Gospel approaches the issue of religion and the state of the USA. The book focuses on some major figures and episodes in the history of the country. This is not exhaustive or comprehensive. The author chooses some topics that he thinks are indicative of the general relationship of religion and state.

He provides insights into the thinking of Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, etc. He quotes their own writings and speeches to convey how they saw religion fitting in the new country. The author uses a wide range of resources that include letters and biographies that provide for me what was new information.

He then looks at some other primary figures such as Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR, Lincoln, JFK, Reagan and Nixon to examine how they viewed religion's place in government and in their lives. He shows how in times of distress such as prior to WWII or during the Civil War, these men turned to religion and enouraged the country to pray.

He discusses the roles of prominent ministers in government. He looks at Billy Graham's relationships with presidents and how other ministers became involved in the political realm.

The author offers a balanced and mostly objective view of religion and public life. He targets both liberal and conservative extremists as being wide of the historical relationship of church and state. The picture he paints is one that lends itself to a moderate and reasoned approach that takes into consideration both sides of the argument. You won't find any other agenda here than to present the true historical account.

The research and narrative are excellent and it offers an educational and enjoyable look at this area of our country's history.

Craig Stephans, author of Shakespeare On Spirituality: Life-Changing Wisdom from Shakespeare's Plays

It was a semi-interesting read...but coming in at 250 page for 200 years of history??? I think perhaps it's a bit short in that respect. He made some interesting points and overall it was enjoyable, if a bit bland and lacking in a real "point" or conclusion. I'm glad I got this one from the library, because it's not really one I would want to have for my personal library and I can't really see myself needing to refer to it again in the future, or even really recommending it to others. I give it a B-, an interesting summary but it has no real depth.

I purchased this audio book because I have a strong interest in the history of The United States and also an interest in the mix of politics and religion. I found the book enlightening, well researched and well written. It really addresses many important issues with how the founders of the U.S. felt about religion and how they expected it would be handled by the government they were creating. It addresses some very touchy issues as well.
People with very hard core views on the subject will probably not find that this book changes their minds, but for those, like me, who seek knowledge on the subject and have not made a strong stand it was very useful. I will listen to it again perhaps even a third time. It's that good and the subject is that complex.

Excellent book if you want to understand the role of religion in America. It helps you understand how separation of church and state has changed and evolved over the years. A great book for a discussion group.

When you think about the American Revolution you have to wonder at the combination of the collective individuality of the people involved. How did they each come to a separate conclusion that they would be better off risking everything they had, than not taking the risk? It is a wonder to me.

So many things about the ideas and activities surrounding the Revolution are firsts - how do some people think up so many new ideas? And how do they come together in agreement?

Not everything they did was great and lofty, but the idea of separating religion from official government adoption was. American Gospel tells the story in such a frank, plain and logical manner that it is hard to believe that it was such a unique concept at that time.

The development of religion intertwined with government and the dangers of it are well researched and documented in a way that reads more as a novel than a history. Jon Meacham presents lessons that would do the World good today to heed.

Oh how I wish every Christian in America would read this book. Too often we are weak only because we don't know our history.

The book starts out with a discussion of Calvinism, Puritanism, and some of the other "isms" that molded peoples opinions around the time of our Country's birth.

Much of the rest of this book is devoted to biographies of thirteen of our founding fathers, including Jefferson, Washington, Henry, and Adams (two of them). Some were Christians, some weren't. But the extent to which our Government was founded on Christian principles and morality is evident by studying their own writings.

The remainder of the book discusses the Biblical principles found in our founding documents (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), and how we've come from there to the godless mess we're in now. Just the last couple of chapters were in themselves worth the entire cost of the book!

John Eidsmoe's book is definately relevant to any inquiry into the relation between the Church and the Civil magistrate, particularly in regard to that relation at the founding of the constitution. The naive assumption that politics operate in an epistemic vaccum is, hopefully, washed away by Eidsmoe's presentation of general philosophical and religious precommitments of our nation's early politicians.

I believe Eidsmoe is a bit optomistic in regard to the orthodoxy of the faith of the constitutional founders, definately underplaying the Masonic influence on their views. Whatever their particular views, Christians should hardly claim them in defense of a thoroughly anti-christian covenantal document that established the *people* as the Sovereign of the nation. Vague references to God hardly establish a Christian nature to the document, though undoubtably, as Eidsmoe states, the structure itself can obviously be attributed to the Presbyterian model of government.

With that said, the book is, in the end, worth reading. Particularly the 22nd chapter, "Into the Third Century: Where does the US go from Here?" Eidsmoe, likely unintentionally, evidences the futility of a covenantal document that establishes human autonomy as Sovereign by it's thorough subjectivism. Eidsmoe demonstates this with a number of penal examples (what *exactly* is the normative referant for 'cruel and unusual' punishment today?)

After reading this book, I would highly recommend Gary North's "Political Polytheism" to supplement it with a little Biblical orthodoxy (keep in mind, Eidsmoe is a dispensationalist - *gag*)

Eidsmoe is clear about his bias but the book certainly isn't an emotional diatribe. Exceptionally well researched, it's a fair and reasonable alternative to the standard dialogue in public schools and academia. A large section of the book is short and simple biographies of 13 old school patriots focused towards their religiosity. Eidsmoe's writing flowed reasonably well and they were interesting. What is outrageous is that, with the widely available historical documentation that Eidsmoe quotes from, some academics still assert that most the founding fathers were deists. Even Franklin himself advocated for official daily prayer during the constitutional convention, asserting that no empire can be made without the direct assistance of God. The original source material is completely twisted out of context or ignored all together to support the modern interpretation of church/state separation.

One can intelligently argue that current case law on church/state issues is right and proper or even that it doesn't go far enough in removing religion from government. It's a legitimate philosophical debate. However, when original source material from the founding fathers is read, it is impossible to argue the current state was ever the original intent. The founding fathers had absolutely no intention of placing the limits on religion that the modern courts do. Eidsmoe documents how Jefferson, though a Universalist and not a Christian, actually advocated earmarking federal funds for Christian missionaries to Native American tribes.

If you think Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists and his "wall of separation" phrase completely eliminated the comingling of religion and government, then read this book. Given the actual history, I don't understand why there's really any debate about this issue. This book really shows how history can be distorted and ignored to support the current spirit of the times.

John Eidsmoe's book is definately relevant to any inquiry into the relation between the Church and the Civil magistrate, particularly in regard to that relation at the founding of the constitution. The naive assumption that politics operate in an epistemic vaccum is, hopefully, washed away by Eidsmoe's presentation of general philosophical and religious precommitments of our nation's early politicians.

I believe Eidsmoe is a bit optomistic in regard to the orthodoxy of the faith of the constitutional founders, definately underplaying the Masonic influence on their views. Whatever their particular views, Christians should hardly claim them in defense of a thoroughly anti-christian covenantal document that established the *people* as the Sovereign of the nation. Vague references to God hardly establish a Christian nature to the document, though undoubtably, as Eidsmoe states, the structure itself can obviously be attributed to the Presbyterian model of government.

With that said, the book is, in the end, worth reading. Particularly the 22nd chapter, "Into the Third Century: Where does the US go from Here?" Eidsmoe, likely unintentionally, evidences the futility of a covenantal document that establishes human autonomy as Sovereign by it's thorough subjectivism. Eidsmoe demonstates this with a number of penal examples (what *exactly* is the normative referant for 'cruel and unusual' punishment today?)

After reading this book, I would highly recommend Gary North's "Political Polytheism" to supplement it with a little Biblical orthodoxy (keep in mind, Eidsmoe is a dispensationalist - *gag*)

I'm familiar with the Founders own writings (original source documents) and I find this book to be an excellent faithful and true account of the important role of religion (Christianity) in the founding of this great nation - Gods New Israel (the New Jerusalem). I note that there are certain high-minded, haughty critics who with their post-modern jargon and foo-foo biased propaganda seek to belittle this great book however I exhort all those seeking for political truth to read this book. It is excellent, and once you have this knowledge, you will not be deceived by foo-foo propaganda from the limp-wristed liberal left. Thank you John - brilliant work.

Among the American Founding Fathers, it is unlikely that there is a man more influential and yet less well known and studied than Dr. John Witherspoon. Prof. Morrison seeks to help correct this neglect in this brief volume. Dr. John Witherspoon was a Scottish Presbyterian minister who came to America in the late 1760s to become the President of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), where he played an active and influential role in American politics, religion and education in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. He was the only minister to sign both the Declaration of Independence and to ratify the Constitution. He was probably Madison's most influential teacher, and, despite his staunch Christian orthodoxy, appears to have enjoyed universally high regard by the other founders, even those such as Franklin and Jefferson who had little use for Biblical Christianity. This book gives an excellent account of a number of interesting aspects of Witherspoon's life and thought.

Chapter 1 gives an overview of the importance of Witherspoon's career in America, including excerpts referring to him from the writings of many of his contemporaries on both sides of the Atlantic. It discusses the significance of his religious alignment, which was orthodox, Reformed, Biblical, Presbyterian Christianity, and how Witherspoon's stature in the colonies influenced the major role that Presbyterians played in the independence movement (King George III called the American Revolution the "Presbyterian rebellion"). The chapter closes by discussing some reasons why Witherspoon has been largely ignored by scholars, such as a scarcity of surviving material, and the fact that most modern scholars will feel very uncomfortable being reminded of a prominent Christian minister who played such an active and influential role in early American politics and who saw no distinction between his religious and his political activities (Witherspoon always insisted on wearing his clerical robes when he attended the Continental Congress).

Chapter 2 examines Witherspoon's religious views, and especially the role that he saw religion playing in the new United States. Witherspoon believed in political freedom of conscience, following the framers of the Westminster Confession, who say that "God alone is lord of the conscience." Nevertheless, he also shared the view common to the founders, that liberty, virtue and faith were equally indispensable in the foundation of a happy society. Witherspoon wrote that "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." Despite his belief in personal religious liberty, Witherspoon could write that "those who are vested with civil authority ought also, with much care, to promote religion and good morals among all under their government" and that "Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction."

Chapter 3 discusses Witherspoon's influence as an educator, and the central place that education had in his day, when its importance for the prosperity and happiness of a nation was viewed as second only to religion. It examines his moral and philosophical teachings, which were drawn largely from Scottish common sense philosophy, and tended strongly toward pragmatism, which became a hallmark not only of early American politics, but also of American life and culture in general.

Chapter 4 considers Witherspoon's role in the American revolution, in terms of both his activities and his theological and philosophical views of liberty and resistance theory. Witherspoon saw little or no distinction between religious and civil tyranny. As a result, his idea of revolution was founded on John Calvin's right of resistance outlined in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, but was also influenced heavily by Locke's generalization of Calvin's idea to civil resistance.

Chapter 5 investigates Witherspoon's activity surrounding the development of the founding documents, including his vocal role at the Continental Congress and his advocacy of a strong and lasting union of the states. It discusses parallels between Witherspoon's writings and The Federalist Papers, his positions on economic questions, and his active role in the formation of the national Presbyterian Church in the United States and the drafting of the Presbyterian Constitution in 1787. In this context, Morrison discusses many of the parallels between the U.S. federal government and Presbyterian government, and he talks about Witherspoon's view of the very limited role that the federal government ought to play (he considered that the scope of the federal government was so limited that a permanent federal city was not a question of pressing importance).

The sixth and final chapter of Morrison's book explores Witherspoon's relation to early American political thinking. It compares his ideas with those of other founders, and it looks at his influence on thinkers such as Madison. In particular, one idea central to Witherspoon's thought that was shared by many of the founders and influential in the framing of the Constitution was the Calvinistic idea of the sinfulness of human nature. The final chapter also considers the influence of various political theorists in early American politics, and discusses the strong pragmatic and empirical spirit that characterized the political views of Witherspoon and the other founders.

If, as Morrison writes, "perhaps more than any other single founder, Witherspoon embodied all of the major intellectual and social elements behind the American founding", it is only to be hoped that we may soon have available a thorough biography of this "forgotten founder" to go along with Morrison's fine volume covering his political and social importance. However, in this oppressive age of political correctness, it is doubtful that a conservative Presbyterian minister will receive too much attention, however influential he may have been. This is an excellent book, and Morrison's rigorous scholarship is consistently obvious in the thorough footnotes (nearly 100 pages of the brief 220 page volume are devoted to appendices, footnotes, bibliography, and index). If you are serious about understanding the early development of the United States, this book will not disappoint you.

I come to this book by way of personal invitation, in fact scan down to the review labelled:
A significant book on a neglected founder, February 4, 2006
Reviewer: Alex Morden (Tucson, AZ, USA)

it is his copy of the book that i have in hand. and if you haven't read his review, do it now. It is much more interesting and thorough than is mine.
The book is basically a historical monograph, written to professional historians, to convince them to research Witherspoon. The theme of the book is on the next to the last page: "Perhaps more than any other single founder, Witherspoon embodied all of the major intellectual and social elements behind the American founding. This was partly circumstantial: Witherspoon was literally peerless among his founding brothers when it came to combining religious, education, and politics, and seldom in American history have so many key vocations been joined in one man. Witherspoon therefore offers us a chance that is genuinely incomparable, to trace the outlines of the american mind at the foundating..." Essentially i feel like an outsider reading over someone's shoulder with this book, it is addressed to and engages with professional historians. However it is not so dry nor so uninteresting a book that many of us amateurs can not gain from reading what is a short introduction to both the American Revolutionary War themes and Witherspoon, but beware it is not an exciting historical novel set in the same period. *grin*

If you are looking to see if this book ought to be on your shelf, just read the first chapter, it is a read from front to back type of book. Mostly because he does not repeat himself and you'll miss something if you don't read it in this manner. I found myself getting up from my easy reading chair and googling people and writings by name, it is a well researched and documented book, as befits the audience and the purpose, so read with a pen or highlighter in hand. It is not an extensive introduction to Witherspoon, it is a tease, a hint of what could be done if Witherspoon got more academic attention, it is not the last word, it is the first word.

So What? should i drop everything and study to become a Witherspoon expert? Maybe someone with the right outlook and right experience might very well read this book and do so, but i am not encouraged to do so. This book is enough Witherspoon for me, i pulled perhaps 50 quotes out of the book. Had a few nice thoughts about how theology and in particular, reformed and Presbyterian theology was influential beyond its numbers in both the lead up to the Revolutionary War and it its aftermath and constitution writing period. But this is not my major interest in history just an aside, if it is your interest this may rate an important read.

The one big idea that i will take away is "the great effect of Scottish Philosophy especially in its Common Sense forms and its in particular it's effect on moral philosophy, and the rejection of divine right of kings, and religious liberty for dissenters" see: pg 127, this way the book firms up a few things i've read in Mark Noll and George Marsden and now i have the name Witherspoon to research more throughly if i desire. Plus because of the extensive apparatus of the book, it becomes an entry point into the literature, certainly a reason not only to own the book but to keep it in mind. So i don't feel that i wasted my time on the book, but it did not strike me like it did the person i borrowed it from, as a book worth recommending and pursuing. However i would like to write better reviews and i will take the one referred to above as an excellent example of how to write a book review.

I read this book for a class called Religion and American Culture. It has very insightful chapters analyzing the religious opinions of important founders of our country, including George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Gaustad illustrates his argument masterfully with quotes from contemporary sources and delves deepy and satisfyingly into the minds of the founding fathers. Although he would find his assessment of the decline in religious fervor to be enthusiastically contested by religious scholars today, his book brings to life the time between the ratification of the Constitution and the Civil War as a time of moral confusion and controversy. Makes you see the time period in a whole new (far more exciting) way.

A masterful treatment of a difficult subject. Refreshing in it's even-handedness, staying clear of the strident presentation too often represented in this subject area. Based on substantial quotations from original text, the author presents the facts of the federal and state legal positions on church and religion. Further, he presents the influence of religious principles on the development of the government institutions within the context of that culture and society. Very well written. And very readable - not too scholarly.