What do you think?
Rate this book
Why the Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church and State
Award-winning journalist Robert Boston lambastes the zealots of the Religious Right for spreading misinformation about the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. Boston reveals how a band of ultraconservative religious groups with a political agenda - led primarily by televangelist Pat Robertson - is conducting a systematic war aginst the separation of church and state. The tactics of these groups are designed to exploit unfounded fears and turn the American people against the separationist principle. They will not rest, Boston says, until the United States has become a theocracy.To expose the Religious Right's blatant distortions of U.S. history and correct its skewed analysis of legal rulings, Boston objectively reviews the evolution of church/state relations in the United States and looks at how the separation principle has been applied by the courts. He also examines efforts by sectarian groups to win government support for their schools, the school prayer issue, the history of the free exercise of religion, and the controversial role of religion in the public square.Published in cooperation with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
292 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 1994
6 people are currently reading
86 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 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 8, 2022
Though written almost three decades ago, Rob Boston's book does a terrific job of showing us the importance of fortifying the separation of Church and State. But it's more relevant today than ever. It is not anti-religion, nor is it heavily pro-politics, it is looking at the proper balance between the two!
The appendixes and supporting data so perfectly illustrate that the nation was not formed to be a Christian country - the words of Jefferson, Madison and others make that very clear. And the detailed use of court cases shine a light on the attacks on separation of church and state and how we need to continue be forever diligent about protecting the ideals of our founding fathers! Which were keeping state and religion separate and apart.
It also details a religious history that might surprise some folks.
And if so, they NEED to be surprised.
The appendixes and supporting data so perfectly illustrate that the nation was not formed to be a Christian country - the words of Jefferson, Madison and others make that very clear. And the detailed use of court cases shine a light on the attacks on separation of church and state and how we need to continue be forever diligent about protecting the ideals of our founding fathers! Which were keeping state and religion separate and apart.
It also details a religious history that might surprise some folks.
And if so, they NEED to be surprised.
May 16, 2023
AN EXCELLENT DEFENSE OF CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
Robert Boston wrote in the Preface to this 1993 book, “In a very real sense, the Religious Right forced me to write this book. In recent years aggressive Religious Right organizations have released a torrent of books, magazines, and pamphlets attacking the concept of separation of church and state. These publications promote a distorted history claiming that church-state separation was not the intention of the nation’s founders. They assert that the Supreme Court invented the separation concept in the 1940s and that the United States was founded to be forever a ‘Christian’ nation—‘Christian’ as they define the term… I believe this propaganda is not only wrong, it is dangerous…. I believe it is vital that someone set the record straight about how separation of church and state came about in the United States and what the principle means today… If we do not, we are by default helping the anti-separationists define the term of the debate. Nothing could be more tragic…
“I acknowledge a debt of gratitude to those who have some before me. However, I do see one critical shortcoming in those previous efforts: Much of the pro-separation material … has been geared more toward those working in academia. In this volume, o hope to state the separationist position in … language that is easily understandable to the man and woman on the street, the believer in the pew, and the activist in the community… It is proper to call this book a manifesto. I am convinced that the concept of separation of church and state stands in grave peril today… My purpose, then, is to call for a return to … complete religious freedom for all through the total separation of church and state.”
He explains, “The Religious Right is marked by theological conservatism---generally meaning a belief that the Bible is inerrant---AND a political outlook that is tied to far-right positions on a variety of social issues… in this book, the term ‘Religious Right’ refers to the movement that began… around 1980 with the rise of the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. Falwell… ushered in this era by calling for a return to the Bible---as he interpreted it along fundamentalist lines---and demanding that believers of his persuasion step up their activity in the political sphere… the Religious Right is primarily a Protestant phenomenon, but it also includes far-right traditionalist Roman Catholics and even anti-separationist Orthodox Jews.” (Pg. 25)
He suggests, “The Religious Right needs the cloak of creeping humanism to shift attention away from its own radical agenda, an agenda most Americans reject outright… The Religious Right knows that Americans fear fundamentalism more than humanism, so it spreads distortion in a desperate effort to change that equation… To succeed, the Religious Right must convince Americans that that millions of their neighbors, friends, and associates… who may claim to be Baptists... Jews, Roman Catholics, Mormons… and the like---are really closet humanists seeking to destroy religion in America and destroy religion in America and force atheism on everyone.” (Pg. 30-31) Later, he adds, “The humanism myth got started because the Religious Right defines ‘secular humanism’ as anything they don’t like that goes on in the public schools.” (Pg. 120)
Of Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists about the ‘wall of separation between Church and State,’ he comments, “The care that Jefferson took in drafting his response … clearly proves that he did not view this letter as a hasty reply … He used his reply to the Danbury Baptists to make a major policy statement… It is important to remember that at the time Jefferson composed his response he was under fire from conservative religious elements who disagreed with his stand in favor of full religious liberty… the letter represented a summary of Jefferson’s thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment’s religion clauses.” (Pg. 66)
He notes, “precursors to today’s Religious Right organizations pushed incessantly during the 19th century for a constitutional amendment that would add some type of endorsement of Christianity to the Constitution… The amendment languished in Congress for years, occasionally being reintroduced. Finally in 1874 the House Judiciary Committee voted against its adoption… The Christian nation amendment was introduced in Congress again in 1882, but this time it died in committee.” (Pg. 86)
He points out, “[Madalyn Murray] O’Hair’s role in the prayer cases constitutes one of the great myths of American church-state relations. Briefly, the myth goes something like this: Until 1962, prayers occurred in every public school in America… O’Hair, an atheist, filed a lawsuit and had them all removed… There is only one problem with this scenario: It isn’t true… several states had already removed school-sponsored devotional exercises … long before O’Hair arrived on the scene. Secondly, O’Hair’s case was only one of three cases heard by the Supreme Court in 1962 and ’63 concerning school prayer… while Madalyn… has proclaimed herself the woman who ‘got prayer kicked out of schools’ and has used her notoriety to establish a nationwide atheist network… No one person can take the credit.” (Pg. 105-106)
He records, “By 1992… Several members of the court’s staunchly separationist wing… had retired. They were replaced by… justices appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Religious Right groups began predicting that a revolution in church-state issues would occur… On June 24, 1992, the court issued a narrow ruling striking down the state-backed prayers and upholding separation of church and state… Separationists may have breathed a collective sigh of relief, but there was a feeling that they had merely dodged the bullet. The ruling, after all, was 5-4… separationists were acutely aware of how precarious their position at the Supreme Court had become. One new appointee could change the balance.” (Pg. 110-111)
He explains, “No matter what group is promoting vouchers, the arguments they use tend to be the same… ‘Parochiaid will promote school “choice”’ … when it comes to private schools, the concept of educational ‘choice’ is meaningless… The religious leaders who operate 85 percent of all private schools have the only real ‘choice’ about who gets in and who doesn’t… Sectarian schools have the right to expel students for ANY reason… ‘Parochiaid will force public schools to improve by making them compete with private schools.’ … the playing field is uneven. Public schools must by law accept all who apply; private schools do not. Public schools mut meet a host of state and federal regulations that control every aspect of their operation… ‘Private school parents are forced to pay taxes twice---once for public schools and once for private.’ … Private school tuition is NOT a tax; it is an additional expense that some parents have chosen to pay. People should not expect reimbursement for state services that they chose on their own to duplicate… ‘The inner-city poor would benefit from a…’ voucher plan…’ … Yearly tuition at a private school can easily top $3,000, Yet most voucher plans offer at most $500 to $1000 in payment… The poor would have no way of supplying the rest. Vouchers … would benefit primarily the wealthy and … people who can already afford private school fees.” (Pg. 131-132)
He states, “Religious groups, like other not-for-profit organizations, enjoy tax-free status… Occasionally… the suggestion is made that churches ought to be taxes… One reason churches stay free from taxation is that most offer a wide array of social services… There is also a fear that taxing churches would require the government to get intimately involved in churches’ affairs and private matters, fostering entanglement of church and state.” (Pg. 168)
He summarizes, “it is highly likely that the United States will always at least claim to operate under a system of separation of church and state. The First Amendment’s religion clauses will not be altered outright or done away with. No official church will be established. No one will ever be forced to participate in religious services against his or her will. The much harder question is determining whether or not the United States will ever adopt a system whereby separation of church and state exists more or less in name only… if certain Supreme Court justices had their way, we would already have such a system.” (Pg. 211)
He concludes, “But even in a disaster of that magnitude, one glimmer of hope can survive. As long as some Americans hold true to the idea and remember the value of church-state separation, the concept can never truly be taken from us.” (Pg. 218)
This book will be ‘must reading’ for those in favor of church-state separation.
Robert Boston wrote in the Preface to this 1993 book, “In a very real sense, the Religious Right forced me to write this book. In recent years aggressive Religious Right organizations have released a torrent of books, magazines, and pamphlets attacking the concept of separation of church and state. These publications promote a distorted history claiming that church-state separation was not the intention of the nation’s founders. They assert that the Supreme Court invented the separation concept in the 1940s and that the United States was founded to be forever a ‘Christian’ nation—‘Christian’ as they define the term… I believe this propaganda is not only wrong, it is dangerous…. I believe it is vital that someone set the record straight about how separation of church and state came about in the United States and what the principle means today… If we do not, we are by default helping the anti-separationists define the term of the debate. Nothing could be more tragic…
“I acknowledge a debt of gratitude to those who have some before me. However, I do see one critical shortcoming in those previous efforts: Much of the pro-separation material … has been geared more toward those working in academia. In this volume, o hope to state the separationist position in … language that is easily understandable to the man and woman on the street, the believer in the pew, and the activist in the community… It is proper to call this book a manifesto. I am convinced that the concept of separation of church and state stands in grave peril today… My purpose, then, is to call for a return to … complete religious freedom for all through the total separation of church and state.”
He explains, “The Religious Right is marked by theological conservatism---generally meaning a belief that the Bible is inerrant---AND a political outlook that is tied to far-right positions on a variety of social issues… in this book, the term ‘Religious Right’ refers to the movement that began… around 1980 with the rise of the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. Falwell… ushered in this era by calling for a return to the Bible---as he interpreted it along fundamentalist lines---and demanding that believers of his persuasion step up their activity in the political sphere… the Religious Right is primarily a Protestant phenomenon, but it also includes far-right traditionalist Roman Catholics and even anti-separationist Orthodox Jews.” (Pg. 25)
He suggests, “The Religious Right needs the cloak of creeping humanism to shift attention away from its own radical agenda, an agenda most Americans reject outright… The Religious Right knows that Americans fear fundamentalism more than humanism, so it spreads distortion in a desperate effort to change that equation… To succeed, the Religious Right must convince Americans that that millions of their neighbors, friends, and associates… who may claim to be Baptists... Jews, Roman Catholics, Mormons… and the like---are really closet humanists seeking to destroy religion in America and destroy religion in America and force atheism on everyone.” (Pg. 30-31) Later, he adds, “The humanism myth got started because the Religious Right defines ‘secular humanism’ as anything they don’t like that goes on in the public schools.” (Pg. 120)
Of Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists about the ‘wall of separation between Church and State,’ he comments, “The care that Jefferson took in drafting his response … clearly proves that he did not view this letter as a hasty reply … He used his reply to the Danbury Baptists to make a major policy statement… It is important to remember that at the time Jefferson composed his response he was under fire from conservative religious elements who disagreed with his stand in favor of full religious liberty… the letter represented a summary of Jefferson’s thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment’s religion clauses.” (Pg. 66)
He notes, “precursors to today’s Religious Right organizations pushed incessantly during the 19th century for a constitutional amendment that would add some type of endorsement of Christianity to the Constitution… The amendment languished in Congress for years, occasionally being reintroduced. Finally in 1874 the House Judiciary Committee voted against its adoption… The Christian nation amendment was introduced in Congress again in 1882, but this time it died in committee.” (Pg. 86)
He points out, “[Madalyn Murray] O’Hair’s role in the prayer cases constitutes one of the great myths of American church-state relations. Briefly, the myth goes something like this: Until 1962, prayers occurred in every public school in America… O’Hair, an atheist, filed a lawsuit and had them all removed… There is only one problem with this scenario: It isn’t true… several states had already removed school-sponsored devotional exercises … long before O’Hair arrived on the scene. Secondly, O’Hair’s case was only one of three cases heard by the Supreme Court in 1962 and ’63 concerning school prayer… while Madalyn… has proclaimed herself the woman who ‘got prayer kicked out of schools’ and has used her notoriety to establish a nationwide atheist network… No one person can take the credit.” (Pg. 105-106)
He records, “By 1992… Several members of the court’s staunchly separationist wing… had retired. They were replaced by… justices appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Religious Right groups began predicting that a revolution in church-state issues would occur… On June 24, 1992, the court issued a narrow ruling striking down the state-backed prayers and upholding separation of church and state… Separationists may have breathed a collective sigh of relief, but there was a feeling that they had merely dodged the bullet. The ruling, after all, was 5-4… separationists were acutely aware of how precarious their position at the Supreme Court had become. One new appointee could change the balance.” (Pg. 110-111)
He explains, “No matter what group is promoting vouchers, the arguments they use tend to be the same… ‘Parochiaid will promote school “choice”’ … when it comes to private schools, the concept of educational ‘choice’ is meaningless… The religious leaders who operate 85 percent of all private schools have the only real ‘choice’ about who gets in and who doesn’t… Sectarian schools have the right to expel students for ANY reason… ‘Parochiaid will force public schools to improve by making them compete with private schools.’ … the playing field is uneven. Public schools must by law accept all who apply; private schools do not. Public schools mut meet a host of state and federal regulations that control every aspect of their operation… ‘Private school parents are forced to pay taxes twice---once for public schools and once for private.’ … Private school tuition is NOT a tax; it is an additional expense that some parents have chosen to pay. People should not expect reimbursement for state services that they chose on their own to duplicate… ‘The inner-city poor would benefit from a…’ voucher plan…’ … Yearly tuition at a private school can easily top $3,000, Yet most voucher plans offer at most $500 to $1000 in payment… The poor would have no way of supplying the rest. Vouchers … would benefit primarily the wealthy and … people who can already afford private school fees.” (Pg. 131-132)
He states, “Religious groups, like other not-for-profit organizations, enjoy tax-free status… Occasionally… the suggestion is made that churches ought to be taxes… One reason churches stay free from taxation is that most offer a wide array of social services… There is also a fear that taxing churches would require the government to get intimately involved in churches’ affairs and private matters, fostering entanglement of church and state.” (Pg. 168)
He summarizes, “it is highly likely that the United States will always at least claim to operate under a system of separation of church and state. The First Amendment’s religion clauses will not be altered outright or done away with. No official church will be established. No one will ever be forced to participate in religious services against his or her will. The much harder question is determining whether or not the United States will ever adopt a system whereby separation of church and state exists more or less in name only… if certain Supreme Court justices had their way, we would already have such a system.” (Pg. 211)
He concludes, “But even in a disaster of that magnitude, one glimmer of hope can survive. As long as some Americans hold true to the idea and remember the value of church-state separation, the concept can never truly be taken from us.” (Pg. 218)
This book will be ‘must reading’ for those in favor of church-state separation.
June 27, 2020
This is a book about exactly what the title says, written by the president (in 1993) of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a First Amendment advocacy group that gets mainline Christians, minority religions, and atheists and agnostics together to make sure governments and churches don't get entangled.
And it's same as it ever was.
Boston gives some good background on the state (ahem) of church-state separation over early American history. In short, it wasn't great! But increasing pluralism eventually got legislatures and courts to realize that, despite majoritarian impulses and theocracy-curious special interests, "Congress shall make no law" really means that.
Then we get to the rise of late 20th-c. conservatism and we see the beginnings of the hard turn. The late Justice Antonin Scalia pulling an overturned 1940 ruling as precedent to knock down a 1963 ruling in 1990, as his opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, led to Congress passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a way to curtail the activist right wing of the Supreme Court. At least that's how Boston frames it. Thirty years on and RFRA (or state-level versions) are held up as shields to defend religious bigotry from any kind of scrutiny. I don't know how much was 9/11 and how much was the ascendancy of LGBTQ rights, and of course this book can't tell me, but that would be an interesting follow up.
In the Trump era, we have the Trinity Lutheran and American Legion, and the dissents in Obergefell and Bostock demonstrating that (1) there are some serious religious-privilege activists on the right wing of the Supreme Court, and (2) the accommodationist position (or worse) is the majority.
Overall, 3.5 stars brought down to 3 - it's a bit dated, though still valuable to general readers.
And it's same as it ever was.
Boston gives some good background on the state (ahem) of church-state separation over early American history. In short, it wasn't great! But increasing pluralism eventually got legislatures and courts to realize that, despite majoritarian impulses and theocracy-curious special interests, "Congress shall make no law" really means that.
Then we get to the rise of late 20th-c. conservatism and we see the beginnings of the hard turn. The late Justice Antonin Scalia pulling an overturned 1940 ruling as precedent to knock down a 1963 ruling in 1990, as his opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, led to Congress passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a way to curtail the activist right wing of the Supreme Court. At least that's how Boston frames it. Thirty years on and RFRA (or state-level versions) are held up as shields to defend religious bigotry from any kind of scrutiny. I don't know how much was 9/11 and how much was the ascendancy of LGBTQ rights, and of course this book can't tell me, but that would be an interesting follow up.
In the Trump era, we have the Trinity Lutheran and American Legion, and the dissents in Obergefell and Bostock demonstrating that (1) there are some serious religious-privilege activists on the right wing of the Supreme Court, and (2) the accommodationist position (or worse) is the majority.
Overall, 3.5 stars brought down to 3 - it's a bit dated, though still valuable to general readers.
September 7, 2020
Someone commented about Chapter 10 (the call to action). I think this chapter should have appeared at the very end.
The ironic thing about the people who want to tear down the wall between church and state is that if the wall didn't exist in the first place, they'd be unable to voice their beliefs.
October 11, 2025
A little dated but still relevant. Solidifies why separation of church and state is essential for the health of both.
June 25, 2011
Why the Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church and State by Rob Boston
What an excellent book! Rob Boston does a wonderful job of illustrating in words the importance of maintaining and supporting the separation of Church and State. Such books are so important because it destroys myths perpetuated by the religious wrong (as I call them).
Positives:
1. Well written, with supporting data throughout.
2. Unexpected but welcomed religious history.
3. A lot of valued information covered in a very accessible manner.
4. Very important issues discussed with clarity.
5. Excellent use of court cases to support arguments.
6. Educational, worthy as a reference book.
7. The appendixes alone are worth the price of the book: a) Common Myths about Separation of Church and State (great for debates). b) Thomas Jefferson's 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists (such eloquence). c) James Madison's 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (lengthy but of importance).
Negatives:
1. Chapter 10 - Preserving Church-State Separation in Your Own Community. Overextended its welcome by being too preachy.
In summary, an important book that handles the most important issues regarding the Separation of Church and State in a very sound, useful manner. I've learned a lot from it and can't recommend it enough!
What an excellent book! Rob Boston does a wonderful job of illustrating in words the importance of maintaining and supporting the separation of Church and State. Such books are so important because it destroys myths perpetuated by the religious wrong (as I call them).
Positives:
1. Well written, with supporting data throughout.
2. Unexpected but welcomed religious history.
3. A lot of valued information covered in a very accessible manner.
4. Very important issues discussed with clarity.
5. Excellent use of court cases to support arguments.
6. Educational, worthy as a reference book.
7. The appendixes alone are worth the price of the book: a) Common Myths about Separation of Church and State (great for debates). b) Thomas Jefferson's 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists (such eloquence). c) James Madison's 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (lengthy but of importance).
Negatives:
1. Chapter 10 - Preserving Church-State Separation in Your Own Community. Overextended its welcome by being too preachy.
In summary, an important book that handles the most important issues regarding the Separation of Church and State in a very sound, useful manner. I've learned a lot from it and can't recommend it enough!
July 20, 2012
Unlike Susan Jacoby's "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" where she provides a chronological review of the separation of church and state laws and Founding Fathers' writings, Rob Boston outlines the myths presented by anti-separationists and the support to debunk these myths. Mr. Boston takes a less confrontational approach to separation of church and state and goes on to explain that religious liberty is can only be obtained by government not supporting one religion over another.
July 26, 2011
Not exactly a page turner, though one wouldn't properly expect it to be, but very well written and organized. The author's position is clearly stated and supported throughout and avoids becoming mired in nit-picky details. Though most likely targeted toward better informing those that agree with his thesis, the book isn't so hostile to the opposition as to be useless in swaying opinion.
August 11, 2020
very informative up through 1992. The recent laws and Supreme Court decisions warrant an update.
Edit: Just finished the 2nd edition from 2003. Again, very informative and well written. Good updates from 1st edition. A 3rd edition after 2020 would be too depressing to read.
Edit: Just finished the 2nd edition from 2003. Again, very informative and well written. Good updates from 1st edition. A 3rd edition after 2020 would be too depressing to read.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews