What do you think?
Rate this book
Believers, Thinkers, and Founders: How We Came to Be One Nation Under God
In Believers, Thinkers, and Founders: How We Came to Be One Nation Under God, Kevin Seamus Hasson — founder and president emeritus of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — offers a refreshing resolution to a familiar conundrum: If there is real religious freedom in America, how is it that our government keeps invoking God? He’s everywhere — from our currency to the Pledge of Allegiance. Isn’t that all entirely too religious? And just whose God are we talking about anyway? If we are intellectually honest, shouldn’t we scrub all these references to God from our public life?
Yet the Declaration of Independence says that God is the source of our rights. “The traditional position,” writes Hasson, “is that our fundamental human rights —including those secured by the First Amendment — are endowed to us by the Creator, and that it would be perilous to permit the government ever to repudiate that point.” America has steadfastly repeated that for more than 200 years, throughout all branches and levels of government.
To say that there is no Creator who endows us with rights, Hasson argues, “is to do more than simply tinker with one of the most famous one-liners in history; it is to change the starting point of our whole explanation of who we are as Americans and, ultimately, why our government is a limited one in the first place.” What to do?
Hasson looks closely at the nation’s founding and sees a solution in the classical distinction between faith and reason. The existence of God, he points out, can traditionally be known by reason alone, while who God is can only be seen by faith. By recognizing the distinction between the “self-evident” Creator referred to in the Declaration of Independence and God as revealed in our faith traditions, we can move past the culture wars that plague us. In short, Hasson argues that we can have a robust First Amendment without abandoning our natural rights. In Believers, Thinkers, and Founders, Hasson examines that idea while looking at a host of issues — including the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer at public events, and the Declaration of Independence — as he demonstrates how we can still be one nation under God.
Yet the Declaration of Independence says that God is the source of our rights. “The traditional position,” writes Hasson, “is that our fundamental human rights —including those secured by the First Amendment — are endowed to us by the Creator, and that it would be perilous to permit the government ever to repudiate that point.” America has steadfastly repeated that for more than 200 years, throughout all branches and levels of government.
To say that there is no Creator who endows us with rights, Hasson argues, “is to do more than simply tinker with one of the most famous one-liners in history; it is to change the starting point of our whole explanation of who we are as Americans and, ultimately, why our government is a limited one in the first place.” What to do?
Hasson looks closely at the nation’s founding and sees a solution in the classical distinction between faith and reason. The existence of God, he points out, can traditionally be known by reason alone, while who God is can only be seen by faith. By recognizing the distinction between the “self-evident” Creator referred to in the Declaration of Independence and God as revealed in our faith traditions, we can move past the culture wars that plague us. In short, Hasson argues that we can have a robust First Amendment without abandoning our natural rights. In Believers, Thinkers, and Founders, Hasson examines that idea while looking at a host of issues — including the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer at public events, and the Declaration of Independence — as he demonstrates how we can still be one nation under God.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published February 14, 2012
8 people are currently reading
235 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 16, 2016
This is a good book and I think timely, helping to point out the importance of religious freedom and understanding that some laws and rights come from Someone and Something greater than anything man-made. The rights God bestows are what create equality. It's profound that these principles were so clearly articulated in the founding documents of the United States. Some people misunderstand these declarations, thinking they contradict everyone's right to religious freedom. I was grateful for how clearly this book helped to explain that we may not and don't need to believe in the same God or any God at all to understanding the importance of these principles. They really are key to our success and happiness and blessings.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes:
"In the tradition of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, we are a nation 'with liberty and justice for all' because we are a 'nation under God (p. 6).'"
"In short, where Pilgrims hold that the truth trumps other people's freedom, the Park Rangers hold the polar opposite: their freedom trumps other people's truth....Each extreme brings with it its own particular risk (p. 12)."
"What was at stake...was what the next generation is taught about where its rights come from (p. 44)."
"Newdow's position, and that of Park Rangers generally, is that rights can be granted only by the state. There are, they insist, no other actors on stage. And the First Amendment, they say, forbids the government from claiming otherwise. The traditional position is that our fundamental human rights--including those secured by the First Amendment--are endowed to us by the Creator and that it would be perilous to permit the government ever to repudiate that point. That traditional understanding and the Park Rangers' position cannot both be correct. So which is it? As we're about to see, that is, on several levels, an inescapable question (p. 46)."
"Will we live our life as if God exists? Or will we conduct ourselves as if He does not? ....The return on a correct bet that God exists would be enormous--eternal happiness--whereas the cost of that bet if it turned out that there was neither God nor afterlife would be much more modest--merely, he said, some quantity of guilty pleasures forgone in the here and now (p. 47)."
"For its part, America has chosen--from the Declaration on--to accept the premise that it is 'self-evident' that we are 'all...created equal' and 'endowed by [our] Creator with certain inalienable rights.' The Declaration further teaches that the proper role of government is to 'secure' the people's rights. Not to 'bestow' or 'grant' those rights, but to 'secure' them. The rights already exist. We need the government only to respect our rights in the way it treats us, and to guard our rights against infringement by others (p. 51)."
"'The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among other parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power (Alexander Hamilton, p. 52).'"
"So both the preamble and the Bill of Rights reemphasize what the Declaration had already insisted on: it is not the government, nor even the Constitution, that is the source of our rights. No, the 'Blessings of Liberty' come from a higher source. (And lest there be any doubt, as soon as it finished drafting and proposing the Bill of Rights to the states, Congress petitioned President Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving to God for its successful completion of that task (p. 53)."
"'The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God (President John F. Kennedy, p. 55).'"
"'We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free (President Ronald Reagan, p. 55).'"
"It may be all but incomprehensible to us today that Lincoln would suggest, in the middle of the most terrible war in American history, that the nation deserved the terrors of that war as punishment for violating the inalienable rights of the slaves. But that is precisely what he did (p. 56)."
"Where the English nation historically has had Anglicanism, and before that, Catholicism, America instead has a philosophy. And on the basis of that philosophy, our government presumes the existence of a God who endows the people with rights (p. 60)."
"So we're each equal to the king. And not only that, the waiter, the cook, and the dishwasher are all equal to us. When anyone asks why, the American tradition responds, because God has made us so. Indeed, we don't' even feel the need to present arguments on the matter: It is, the Declaration assures us, 'self-evident.' But what if it were to go from self-evident to unthinkable that a Creator has done any such thing? What if the Michael Newdows of this world were to have their way and public recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Declaration of Independence was edited to censor out the offending term Creator in the Declaration and under God in the Pledge? What would become of our foundational principle of equality? To say there is no God is to do more than simply tinker with one of the most famous one-liners in history; it is to change the starting point of our whole explanation of who we are as Americans. What answer could ever take its place (p. 67)?"
"Another common name for this distinction between philosophy and theology is 'reason versus revelation (p. 87)."
"Technically, according to the philosophical tradition, one can't 'know' and 'believe' the same thing in the same way at the same time (p. 88)."
"To be clear, the Philosopher's God is not a different God than the Living God whom believers embrace. He is, rather, only as much of the Living God as can be known through reason alone. The portrait of God that these philosophers are able to draw, when left completely to their own devices, is not much to loo at. In fact, it's not really a portrait at all. It's more like a rough sketch of a poorly lit profile, glimpsed at a distance. Indeed, this sketch is so faint that the philosophers rarely even attempt to name its subject (p. 97)."
"America was a new experiment in old ideas (p. 106)."
"Great statesmen (and plenty not so great) have long grappled with the fundamental questions of society: Why does government exist, and what place or meaning does it have in our lives? What are the origins of government and laws? Then, what is the appropriate nature and aim of government? How can government really serve, as well as recognize, human nature? By the time of the American founding, thinkers had been posing these questions, in theory at least, for the better part of two millennia (p. 115)."
"'The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king (p. 120).'"
"Madison and Hamilton thus agreed with Jefferson that the American Revolution was a fight for 'the rights of human nature' and that those rights had an 'Author' higher than King George III, Parliament, or any other purely human institution. What's more, the conclusion that those rights had such an author was not a religious idea but a philosophical one (p. 128)."
"'The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men (p. 136).'"
"Giants standing on the shoulders of giants, they brought about something striking, new: the American experiment. The premise of their argument was that we were not merely subjects of a distant monarch but individuals who were fundamentally equal to that monarch, with inalienable rights that even the king must respect. What's more, they had this equality and possessed these rights not from some sort of royal entitlement or grant but as nothing less than a gift from God (p. 143)."
"'This nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (President Abraham Lincoln, p. 150).'"
"'Those people who are not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants (William Penn, p. 157).'"
"So then, what's the full meaning of separation of church and state? And why doesn't government acknowledgement of a Creator violate it (p. 166)?"
"If you can't saw 'one nation under Jesus,' how can you say 'one nation under God'? Simple. You can't say 'one nation under Jesus' because that is a religious assertion, which the government may never make. The second--'one nation under God'--is a philosophical assertion, and the government makes those all the time (p. 189)."
Here are a few of my favorite quotes:
"In the tradition of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, we are a nation 'with liberty and justice for all' because we are a 'nation under God (p. 6).'"
"In short, where Pilgrims hold that the truth trumps other people's freedom, the Park Rangers hold the polar opposite: their freedom trumps other people's truth....Each extreme brings with it its own particular risk (p. 12)."
"What was at stake...was what the next generation is taught about where its rights come from (p. 44)."
"Newdow's position, and that of Park Rangers generally, is that rights can be granted only by the state. There are, they insist, no other actors on stage. And the First Amendment, they say, forbids the government from claiming otherwise. The traditional position is that our fundamental human rights--including those secured by the First Amendment--are endowed to us by the Creator and that it would be perilous to permit the government ever to repudiate that point. That traditional understanding and the Park Rangers' position cannot both be correct. So which is it? As we're about to see, that is, on several levels, an inescapable question (p. 46)."
"Will we live our life as if God exists? Or will we conduct ourselves as if He does not? ....The return on a correct bet that God exists would be enormous--eternal happiness--whereas the cost of that bet if it turned out that there was neither God nor afterlife would be much more modest--merely, he said, some quantity of guilty pleasures forgone in the here and now (p. 47)."
"For its part, America has chosen--from the Declaration on--to accept the premise that it is 'self-evident' that we are 'all...created equal' and 'endowed by [our] Creator with certain inalienable rights.' The Declaration further teaches that the proper role of government is to 'secure' the people's rights. Not to 'bestow' or 'grant' those rights, but to 'secure' them. The rights already exist. We need the government only to respect our rights in the way it treats us, and to guard our rights against infringement by others (p. 51)."
"'The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among other parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power (Alexander Hamilton, p. 52).'"
"So both the preamble and the Bill of Rights reemphasize what the Declaration had already insisted on: it is not the government, nor even the Constitution, that is the source of our rights. No, the 'Blessings of Liberty' come from a higher source. (And lest there be any doubt, as soon as it finished drafting and proposing the Bill of Rights to the states, Congress petitioned President Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving to God for its successful completion of that task (p. 53)."
"'The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God (President John F. Kennedy, p. 55).'"
"'We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free (President Ronald Reagan, p. 55).'"
"It may be all but incomprehensible to us today that Lincoln would suggest, in the middle of the most terrible war in American history, that the nation deserved the terrors of that war as punishment for violating the inalienable rights of the slaves. But that is precisely what he did (p. 56)."
"Where the English nation historically has had Anglicanism, and before that, Catholicism, America instead has a philosophy. And on the basis of that philosophy, our government presumes the existence of a God who endows the people with rights (p. 60)."
"So we're each equal to the king. And not only that, the waiter, the cook, and the dishwasher are all equal to us. When anyone asks why, the American tradition responds, because God has made us so. Indeed, we don't' even feel the need to present arguments on the matter: It is, the Declaration assures us, 'self-evident.' But what if it were to go from self-evident to unthinkable that a Creator has done any such thing? What if the Michael Newdows of this world were to have their way and public recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Declaration of Independence was edited to censor out the offending term Creator in the Declaration and under God in the Pledge? What would become of our foundational principle of equality? To say there is no God is to do more than simply tinker with one of the most famous one-liners in history; it is to change the starting point of our whole explanation of who we are as Americans. What answer could ever take its place (p. 67)?"
"Another common name for this distinction between philosophy and theology is 'reason versus revelation (p. 87)."
"Technically, according to the philosophical tradition, one can't 'know' and 'believe' the same thing in the same way at the same time (p. 88)."
"To be clear, the Philosopher's God is not a different God than the Living God whom believers embrace. He is, rather, only as much of the Living God as can be known through reason alone. The portrait of God that these philosophers are able to draw, when left completely to their own devices, is not much to loo at. In fact, it's not really a portrait at all. It's more like a rough sketch of a poorly lit profile, glimpsed at a distance. Indeed, this sketch is so faint that the philosophers rarely even attempt to name its subject (p. 97)."
"America was a new experiment in old ideas (p. 106)."
"Great statesmen (and plenty not so great) have long grappled with the fundamental questions of society: Why does government exist, and what place or meaning does it have in our lives? What are the origins of government and laws? Then, what is the appropriate nature and aim of government? How can government really serve, as well as recognize, human nature? By the time of the American founding, thinkers had been posing these questions, in theory at least, for the better part of two millennia (p. 115)."
"'The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king (p. 120).'"
"Madison and Hamilton thus agreed with Jefferson that the American Revolution was a fight for 'the rights of human nature' and that those rights had an 'Author' higher than King George III, Parliament, or any other purely human institution. What's more, the conclusion that those rights had such an author was not a religious idea but a philosophical one (p. 128)."
"'The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men (p. 136).'"
"Giants standing on the shoulders of giants, they brought about something striking, new: the American experiment. The premise of their argument was that we were not merely subjects of a distant monarch but individuals who were fundamentally equal to that monarch, with inalienable rights that even the king must respect. What's more, they had this equality and possessed these rights not from some sort of royal entitlement or grant but as nothing less than a gift from God (p. 143)."
"'This nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (President Abraham Lincoln, p. 150).'"
"'Those people who are not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants (William Penn, p. 157).'"
"So then, what's the full meaning of separation of church and state? And why doesn't government acknowledgement of a Creator violate it (p. 166)?"
"If you can't saw 'one nation under Jesus,' how can you say 'one nation under God'? Simple. You can't say 'one nation under Jesus' because that is a religious assertion, which the government may never make. The second--'one nation under God'--is a philosophical assertion, and the government makes those all the time (p. 189)."
November 11, 2017
Hasson asks an interesting question: What is the difference of pledging allegiance to “one nation under God,” versus “one nation under Jesus Christ?” Is liberty, as the framers of the Constitution understood it, possible without an acknowledgment of a divine authority which bestows such liberty? Hasson makes the argument that one nation "under God" is more of a natural rights/natural law claim (i.e. philosophical claim) than it is a theological one. Of course, this is a deeply disputable idea. Nonetheless, the argument is presented in a concise and interesting way.
January 13, 2019
Distinguishes rights endowed by our creator from those given by the state. Hasson traces the intellectual tradition of a Philosophers' God as what can be known about God from reason alone and describes how our freedom is built on that philosophy. He distinguishes a philosophy about God from a theology stating more about God. I found these distinctions helpful and clearly stated. It clarifies for me what government can do and the sort of rights government must protect. Good quick read.
January 16, 2020
Hasson explains that the phrase “under God” is a philosophical assertion rather than a religious proclamation. This understanding serves to ground our rights as natural blessings from our Creator, unable to ever be rightly, or fully, taken from us, though we may be wrongfully oppressed. At the same time, as Hasson makes clear, recognizing that “under God” is a philosophical statement allows for the preservation of the religious freedom of all.
May 23, 2023
This book is well worth reading if you want a framework for God’s place in American history. Be prepared to think and reread portions to fully grasp the author’s research.
In the end, I still firmly believe that we can not separate God from His rightful place in America. More importantly, denying His place seals our doom.
In the end, I still firmly believe that we can not separate God from His rightful place in America. More importantly, denying His place seals our doom.
June 23, 2023
Excellent survey, review, and defense of our national basis for human rights and dignity rooted not in governmental authority, but rather endowed by a creator above government. Thereby not something human authority grants, and can take away, but for which governments are instituted to protect. Highly recommended reading for chaplains and others interested in dignity and religious freedoms.
May 2, 2018
Interesting book, lots of information.
March 3, 2020
Easy read, simply and in a very digestible way puts forward an argument for our nation’s foundations as a government built on the notion that there is a higher power.
June 25, 2016
What is the difference of pledging allegiance to “one nation under God,” versus “one nation under Jesus Christ?” Is liberty, as the framers of the Constitution understood it, possible without an acknowledgment of a divine authority which bestows such liberty? These are just two of the questions that Kevin Seamus Hasson addresses in his new book, Believers, Thinkers, and Founders. [1]
I had the pleasure the past few days of reading this book, and Hassoninterviewing Seamus, as he prefers to be called, before writing this review. The author was pleasant and engaging, and his passion for his work shines through both in his writing and in conversation. Seamus is a retired attorney who, in 1993, founded the now famous Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths.”[2] He served as the organization’s president until his retirement in 2011, and continues to serve on the Board of Directors as President Emeritus. He received a B.S. in Theology and Economics, an M.A. in Theology, and a Juris Doctorate from Notre Dame, and holds three honorary doctorate degrees.He[3]
Believers, Thinkers, and Founders is an easy-to-read book that tackles some very big issues. The book was written with the goal that “people without degrees would be able to engage the arguments around religious liberty in America.”[4] Beginning with the story of atheist activist Michael Newdow’s court battle to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance,” the book then takes an excursus into a discussion of two groups commonly found in debates over the relationship between the state and religion. These groups, called “pilgrims” and “park rangers,” represent the two extremes that would either “permit only their faith to be practiced publicly” (Pilgrims), or contend that “truth claims about God – no matter how harmless – have no place in public culture.”[5][6] He then proceeds to offer a middle-road between the two extremes – one that argues of the basis of historical court cases, the basic idea of liberty and its source (Chapter 4), the history of the Founders and the framing of the Constitution (Chapters 7 and 10), and the philosophical approaches that influenced those early founders and proto-founders (Chapters 6, 8 and 9).[7]
There is an over-arching idea that really stuck with me after reading the book:
This is the distinction between making a philosophical statement and making a religious statement. Seamus contends that national statements, such as “In God we trust” or “one nation under God” or “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” are philosophical statements which not only are appropriate in the public sphere of a nation founded on the idea of religious liberty, but are essential for a right understanding and protection of that very liberty.
When asked what he wanted readers to know about his book, Seamus wanted to encourage that the book not be misread as his putting up a “golden-calf” in his arguments for what he refers to as the “philosopher’s God.”[8] This idea that an understanding of the existence of a good God who endows men with liberty could be taken by some (especially the “pilgrims”) as a watering-down of Christian truth. However, Seamus contends, and I agree, that this has always been the position of Christian (and much secular) scholarship, reaching clear back to the apostle Paul’s preaching in Athens, where he engaged the philosophers of his day on their own terms.[9]
Believers, Thinkers, and Founders is an excellent book with enough scholarship to make it a formidable tool in discussions of faith in the public square, and enough simple clarity to make it accessible to those outside formal academia. I highly recommend it.
[1] Kevin Seamus Hasson, Believers, Thinkers, and Founders, (New York, Image, 2016).
[2] http://www.becketfund.org/our-mission, (accessed June 22, 2016).
[3] http://www.becketfund.org/staff-membe..., (accessed June 22, 2016).
[4] Kevin Seamus Hasson, interview (conducted June 22, 2016.)
[5] The terms “pilgrims” and “park rangers” are taken from Hasson’s earlier book, The Right to Be Wrong, (New York, Image, 2012).
[6] Hasson, Believers, Thinkers, and Founders, 9-13.
[7] These divisions are my own, and not necessarily the author’s.
[8] The idea of the philosopher’s God is explored in depth in Chapter 6, then referenced throughout the remainder of the book.
[9] Acts 17.
The Patriot Principle FTC Disclaimer
In accordance with FTC guidelines for bloggers, I would like to be clear that many of the books (including this one) reviewed on The Patriot Principle are provided by the publisher/author free of charge. I am not compensated for my reviews. All of my opinions are my own and are in no way influenced by the way I obtain my materials. I am not required to post a good review in order to obtain the book, nor will I give a good review if I think the book is not good.
I had the pleasure the past few days of reading this book, and Hassoninterviewing Seamus, as he prefers to be called, before writing this review. The author was pleasant and engaging, and his passion for his work shines through both in his writing and in conversation. Seamus is a retired attorney who, in 1993, founded the now famous Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths.”[2] He served as the organization’s president until his retirement in 2011, and continues to serve on the Board of Directors as President Emeritus. He received a B.S. in Theology and Economics, an M.A. in Theology, and a Juris Doctorate from Notre Dame, and holds three honorary doctorate degrees.He[3]
Believers, Thinkers, and Founders is an easy-to-read book that tackles some very big issues. The book was written with the goal that “people without degrees would be able to engage the arguments around religious liberty in America.”[4] Beginning with the story of atheist activist Michael Newdow’s court battle to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance,” the book then takes an excursus into a discussion of two groups commonly found in debates over the relationship between the state and religion. These groups, called “pilgrims” and “park rangers,” represent the two extremes that would either “permit only their faith to be practiced publicly” (Pilgrims), or contend that “truth claims about God – no matter how harmless – have no place in public culture.”[5][6] He then proceeds to offer a middle-road between the two extremes – one that argues of the basis of historical court cases, the basic idea of liberty and its source (Chapter 4), the history of the Founders and the framing of the Constitution (Chapters 7 and 10), and the philosophical approaches that influenced those early founders and proto-founders (Chapters 6, 8 and 9).[7]
There is an over-arching idea that really stuck with me after reading the book:
This is the distinction between making a philosophical statement and making a religious statement. Seamus contends that national statements, such as “In God we trust” or “one nation under God” or “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” are philosophical statements which not only are appropriate in the public sphere of a nation founded on the idea of religious liberty, but are essential for a right understanding and protection of that very liberty.
When asked what he wanted readers to know about his book, Seamus wanted to encourage that the book not be misread as his putting up a “golden-calf” in his arguments for what he refers to as the “philosopher’s God.”[8] This idea that an understanding of the existence of a good God who endows men with liberty could be taken by some (especially the “pilgrims”) as a watering-down of Christian truth. However, Seamus contends, and I agree, that this has always been the position of Christian (and much secular) scholarship, reaching clear back to the apostle Paul’s preaching in Athens, where he engaged the philosophers of his day on their own terms.[9]
Believers, Thinkers, and Founders is an excellent book with enough scholarship to make it a formidable tool in discussions of faith in the public square, and enough simple clarity to make it accessible to those outside formal academia. I highly recommend it.
[1] Kevin Seamus Hasson, Believers, Thinkers, and Founders, (New York, Image, 2016).
[2] http://www.becketfund.org/our-mission, (accessed June 22, 2016).
[3] http://www.becketfund.org/staff-membe..., (accessed June 22, 2016).
[4] Kevin Seamus Hasson, interview (conducted June 22, 2016.)
[5] The terms “pilgrims” and “park rangers” are taken from Hasson’s earlier book, The Right to Be Wrong, (New York, Image, 2012).
[6] Hasson, Believers, Thinkers, and Founders, 9-13.
[7] These divisions are my own, and not necessarily the author’s.
[8] The idea of the philosopher’s God is explored in depth in Chapter 6, then referenced throughout the remainder of the book.
[9] Acts 17.
The Patriot Principle FTC Disclaimer
In accordance with FTC guidelines for bloggers, I would like to be clear that many of the books (including this one) reviewed on The Patriot Principle are provided by the publisher/author free of charge. I am not compensated for my reviews. All of my opinions are my own and are in no way influenced by the way I obtain my materials. I am not required to post a good review in order to obtain the book, nor will I give a good review if I think the book is not good.
September 19, 2016
Where do our natural rights come from? In what ideas are they rooted? Judeo-Christian theology? The UN charter of human rights? Majority rule, and subject to revision at any time?
Upon such questions the controversies over religious liberties and the separation of church and state have been waged in the public square, and a focal point of such debate has centered around the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Kevin Hasson is the founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and he crafts a careful argument that, to my mind, successfully carves out and defends the legality and validity of references to God in America's founding documents, the pledge, and elsewhere.
Hasson draws a careful distinction between a philosophical argument for a creator God, which is based upon reason alone, and a theological one based upon revelation. In other words, when the Founding Fathers rooted our inalienable constitutional rights in an external and objective Creator, they were making a philosophical argument, not a religious one. Therefore, it's not a violation of anyone's religious freedom or the so-called (and oft misunderstood) separation of church and state. In fact, without such a philosophical grounding our rights would rely on the subjective whims of others.
This is a short book. Reviewing the lawsuits of Michael Newdow, Hasson takes the infamous atheist's objections seriously and ably answers them, using a brief American history lesson to provide context. A quote from the final pages of the book provide a useful summation of the point:
Upon such questions the controversies over religious liberties and the separation of church and state have been waged in the public square, and a focal point of such debate has centered around the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Kevin Hasson is the founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and he crafts a careful argument that, to my mind, successfully carves out and defends the legality and validity of references to God in America's founding documents, the pledge, and elsewhere.
Hasson draws a careful distinction between a philosophical argument for a creator God, which is based upon reason alone, and a theological one based upon revelation. In other words, when the Founding Fathers rooted our inalienable constitutional rights in an external and objective Creator, they were making a philosophical argument, not a religious one. Therefore, it's not a violation of anyone's religious freedom or the so-called (and oft misunderstood) separation of church and state. In fact, without such a philosophical grounding our rights would rely on the subjective whims of others.
This is a short book. Reviewing the lawsuits of Michael Newdow, Hasson takes the infamous atheist's objections seriously and ably answers them, using a brief American history lesson to provide context. A quote from the final pages of the book provide a useful summation of the point:
The most that may traditionally be known about the Philosophers' God is that he exists, that he is the Creator, and that he is just and good. To ardent believers that may seem like a pretty thin gruel. But for our purposes, it's plenty. It makes the existence of the Philosophers' God an intellectual position potent enough to ground our individual rights but nowhere near strong enough to ground any sort of theocracy. Just as important, those who are unconvinced of his existence are staking out only a philosophical, not a theological, disagreement. They are protected conscientious objectors in a country that secures the rights of all, not reviled infidels in some confessional state. Their right to dissent will be scrupulously respected by a government that acknowledges that everyone's rights--including those of dissenters--are ultimately grounded in the Philosophers' God. (188-189)
June 24, 2016
This book presents a well considered viewpoint on how the founders of the United States of America thought about man's natural rights being granted by God. The book justifies the use of "one nation under God", and show this image of the "God of philosophy" to be the approach that allows religious freedom (pluralism) in our country.
June 25, 2016
A very well written, easy read. The author relays historical, common, and legal views on one of the most debated topics..."under God". I found this book insightful. The author is not pushing to persuade a readers viewpoint, but rather proclaim a simplistic common core.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews