Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence

by Alan M. Dershowitz

In How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence , author Alan Dershowitz proves that no relation exists between the Declaration of Independence’s “Creator and “Nature’s God,” on the one hand, and the Judeo-Christian God of the Old and New Testaments, on the other hand. Learn about the religious right’s goal to Christianize America by using the Declaration of Independence and arguing that this document proves that the United States was founded on Biblical law. Understand everything from the argument to the documentation that Dershowitz uses to disprove this historical distortion.

Genres: Politics, Religion, Nonfiction, History, American History, Atheism, Philosophy

208 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2007

About the author

Alan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is known for his career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.

As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

Reviews

[Liz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have never read so much of Thomas Jefferson's actual writings, letters, and documents. The author, a professor of Law at Harvard Law School "and one of the country's foremost appellate lawyers", did not have to say much to get the point across: Jefferson is not the man that the religious conservatives are saying he is. The question that comes up at the end of the book is, therefore, why do they want to make him and other Founding Fathers Evangelical Christians? And by default, the Declaration of Independence a "Christian" document? (They were clearly deists and John Adams was a Unitarian buried in Unitarian Church). In the author's view, they are rewriting history to tear down the walls between church and state. The author makes a strong case at the end about the critical need for the separation of church and state. Turning our democracy into a theocracy would damage both organized religion and churches as well as make our country more divided than ever. His arguments are cogent, well researched, and demanding of our understanding. Well worth a read.
Four stars because he does belabor some points with lots of quotes from the early framers of the Declaration and the Constitution. Yet he clearly predicts what is happening now in our political climate and points out how dangerous it is to go down this road. (Jefferson would turn over in his grave)

[Richard Etzel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author enables the reader to understand how the religious right picks and chooses items within the Declaration of Independence and interprets them as if they were propounded by Thomas Jefferson. Yet historical understanding of the meaning of Jefferson's words is exactly opposite those interpretations. He calls that callous disregard for the truth a Blasphemy. The book ought to be read by everyone so that other interpretations of that famous document can show how the religious right uses bits and pieces of the document to convince readers that America is really a "Christian" country. Their purpose is to tear down the long standing belief that there ought to be "separation of Church and State for the good of both bodies.

[Justin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many of the nonfiction books I've been reading lately fall under the banner of "important but somewhat outdated" (to the extent that I should probably make a shelf for that). Blasphemy is no exception, though only in the sense that the dangers it talks about have only gotten more pressing in the 13 years since it was written. Some elements, such as the look into the mindsets of the founding fathers, are essentially timeless, so those will hold up regardless of when this book is read. But while Dershowitz recognizes that the assault on the separation between church and state has been ongoing for a long time, and that the tactics of the religious right are (perhaps ironically) evolving, the political climate back in 2007 wasn't nearly as caustic as it is today. If anything, the alarm raised by Blasphemy come across as an understatement, these days.

That said, the exploration of the intent behind the drafting of the Declaration of Independence still provides a solid basis for defending the document from current attempts to distort it. As a primer for providing rebuttals to the "Christian nation" argument, you could do a lot worse.

Really, my only major quibble with this book is its repetition of quotations. For a tome of well under 200 pages, there's no need to reuse the same paragraph-long quotes two, sometimes three times. The page count is short enough already, without that sort of padding. In spite of that, Blasphemy is still an important book, whose only true shortcoming is only a reflection of just how contentious its central topic has become in the years since it came out.

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've read a few books by Alan Dershowitz. As controversial as some of his work has been over the years, he's a compelling writer and history buff and on balance an important voice to have on a book shelf.

He lays out how much a Christian state is at odds with the intention of the founding fathers - particularly Jefferson, who seemed more secular humanist than anything. This works as a shorter companion to Randall Balmer's "God in the White House."

[Joe Tucker · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very important read. Written in 2007, it is even more relevant today than 18 years ago, as we witness the further crumbling of our democracy. Separation of church and state is a cornerstone of that democracy, and behind all the noise of this administration seems to be the intent to not only chip away at the cornerstone, but remove it.

[Libertine · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently finished an interesting book: "Blasphemy:How the Religious Right is Hijacking Our Declaration of Independence" by Alan Dershowitz. That is, he refutes attempts by Christian fundamentalists to rewrite the history of our nation's founding by claiming that the Founders were all orthodox Christians who never intended the separation of church and state, but founded the USA as a "Christian Nation".

This short book contains three long chapters. The first examines the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, focusing on the decidedly not Christian Thomas Jefferson, quoting extensively from his writings. The views of other founders are also covered in less detail.

The first chapter also looks at the God-language that was used by the Founders though the lens of Deism, which many of the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson, believed in. He goes into detail as to how Deism and Universalism differs from today's conservative evangelical Christianity.

The second chapter covers the Religious Right's strategy for making the Founding Fathers over in their image and their plans to turn the US into a theocracy. He asserts that their plan is essentially two-fold. The first step would be a Trojan horse: to lower the wall of separation between church and state enough to allow non-threatening "generic" religion -- God, nonsectarian prayer, multiple religious images into the government sphere. The next step would be to then insist that Christianity is America's only "true" religion, as our nation was, in their view, founded by Christian on Christian principles. This would effectively make adherents of other religions be second class citizens, with atheists and agnostics being officially condemned as immoral, and would no doubt bring back the legality of having religious tests in order to hold elected office.

The third chapter, "What Are the 'Laws of Nature' and 'Nature's God'?", is the most fascinating in the book, in my opinion. In this chapter, Dershowitz compares the concept of "natural laws" vs positive legal enactments. He shows the logical fallacies in the notion of natural law, yet concedes that it is a useful legal fiction that give the legal basis on which to oppose or resist unjust laws that have been properly enacted.

Dershowitz shows that human knowledge, from which laws flow, comes from three main sources: discovery, invention, and revelation. Positive law is based on invention, which is an imperfect thing and is subject to amendment and improvement as times and circumstances change. Natural law, on the other hand is based on discovery and/or divine revelation. It is fully developed and flawless and is just waiting for humans to discover/discern it, then to live from thence forward by its unchanging principles.

But the sticking point in "natural law" is the fact that nature itself is morally neutral. Dershowitz quotes Robert Ingersoll: "In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are only consequences." Anatole France concurred: "Nature, in its indifference, makes no distinction between good and evil".

Dershowitz asserts: "Morality evolves with experience, and nature is part of that experience, but not the only part. In constructing a moral code, one should not ignore the varieties of human nature, but the diverse components of nature cannot be translated directly into morality. The complex relationship between the is of nature and the ought of morality must be mediated by human experience".

Rather than the laws of nature or God's revealed word, Dershowitz believes that source of higher morality is human experience -- trial and error. "We are at our best when we recognize our past mistakes and try build a better system of morality to avoid repetition of those mistakes. Rights come from wrongs!" He goes on to say, "Our present system of rights is not based on Nature of God, but rather on a recognition of our past wrongs and a desire not to repeat them -- or do worse".

[Psykeactiv1 · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book not only outline ls the constituents, proponents, and events involved with the Declaration of Independence. It details how the struggle to maintain a separation of Church and State is an eternal war from which one can never relent. It primes the eye to recognize the strategy of religious majorities to force sectarian policies on their behalf.

What it does not discuss however, is how corporations that are sponsored by the religious right have been using the ambiguities of the law concerning religious freedom to force policy for themselves, as well as other countries. Dershowitz does his best to unveil how through the election of George Bush Jr, we as Americans can historically witness how certain liberties were revoked, and sectarian policy enforced in the name of "Christian Justice."

However, when mentioning how proselytizing charity organizations (which came to exist as a result of George Bush Jr.'s policies) are feeding people "in the name of Jesus," he's not taking into account how this may be affecting the sites where these charities occur. For example, there are places where Christian Proselytizing would inevitably come into conflict with the status quo of the host nation, but needs the aid, such as Sudan. In this country, Islam is the crux of government policy and culture. If a Christian organization is feeding the people under the guise of Christian evangelism, they're not only predisposing the people to danger by giving them a worldview antagonistic to their everyday reality. They're also fanning the flame of intolerance against the people they're trying to help (the government knows who's accepting such views, and likewise, Christianity makes it virtuous to suffer for Christ, hence the dilemma). Just as President Bush, in the quest to liberate Iraq in the name of a democracy which they did not want, in the case of the people of the country Sudan, who could bite/reject the hand that feeds them? Such Fait Accompli, is common strategy amongst Christian organizations who's sole mission is to expand influence.


Likewise, Dershowitz reveals there has been a permissible attack on public education by the demand to teach the Christian alternative to Scientific Theory. In his arguments however, he digresses to suggest that religion is not to be fully vilified. Religion, in his view, as a maximalist power, may exist as a checks and balance to the unbounded freedoms of market and government. The question this raises though, is whether it is more efficient to regard this role to religion, or allow *cultural discourse* to take precedent as an authority/influence for such situations.

From what I gather from my own life experience and this book, cultural discourse can be as free as social media polls, and conversations or debates in media that espouse or represent these views. It doesn't require an institution like a church to operate effectively, rather, a means by which persons involved are educated and discuss decisions based on the given facts. It is my deepest desire to aid to such endeavor, and to pioneer such a future for my country.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

The language of the U.S. Constitution has long presented problems to members of the religious right, who take it as an article of faith that the United States, being founded by Christians, must be a Christian nation. The Constitution, though, mentions religion only twice (in the Establishment clause of the First Amendment and the rule against religious tests for public office, Art. 6, Sec. 3) and Christianity not at all. The Declaration of Independence, however, makes several references to religion, if not Christianity. As a result, the RR seeks to use the Declaration as a "bridge document," urging it as evidence that the founders did indeed intend the United States to be a Christian nation.

Dershowitz, through careful textual analysis of each instance of religious language in the the Declaration, as well as letters and other contemporaneous writings argues that although Jefferson used language such as "Creator" and "Nature's God," this language reflected the views of Jefferson (and the others) as Deists, not Christians.

Deist, who were quite prevalent among the educated founders, did believe in a creator, but as believed "his" workings could be discerned through careful observation of nature's workings and rigorous rationality about those observations. Dershowitz posits evidence that their creator was like a celestial watchmaker, who, having constructed the universal machine, set the gears in motion and then stepped back, taking no further action to interfere with human affairs. Consequently, the Deists like Jefferson abjured belief in anything miraculous written in the bible, as against the very observable workings of nature.

Further, Jefferson himself abhorred the idea of organized religion as a "pious fraud", and argued vigorously no church should be permitted to influence the affairs of the nation in any way, or the same corruption of good governance would occur as had in Europe, which did have state sponsored religions.

This is an excellent book for those interested in constitutional history, law, or the intellectual thought of Jefferson, Adams and others, as well as those looking for ammunition for arguments with friends and relatives in the religious right.

[Joseph F. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A small book with a self-explanatory title. Dershowitz starts his book with what Jefferson actually meant when he referred to God when he wrote the Declaration. He uses a series of quotes left by Jefferson's letters. It is pretty obvious after reading them that Jefferson, as well as many at that time, had severe criticisms of the Bible, and saw God as deists do: a being who designed the world and no longer intercedes with humans. He also did not have a son named Jesus. Jefferson arrived at this through what he believed was his reason. If someone else came to a different conclusion using their reasoning skills, that would be fine.
The second chapter deals with how so many conservative Christians have latched on to the Declaration as proof that it is a Christian doctrine. They do this by misrepresenting what Jefferson meant when he wrote his work in order to push their agenda. This chapter will either make you laugh or cry at the insidiousness of some people.
The book is a bit repetitive, and the author even sometimes uses the same quotes more than once.
But what pushes this book into the 4 star realm is the interesting chapter 3. Agree or disagree with it, it gives much food for thought as to what inalienable rights actually mean. Do we have an inborn propensity for such things as liberty? Also, when someone says we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it does not take a lot of thinking for everyone to claim these are good ideas. The question is, are these rights enough? They are not. We still need to create man made laws (positive laws, to use legalese), in order to safeguard peoples' rights. And every time a law is passed, do we lose a bit of liberty? Best of all, is there really such a thing as natural law? Or does everything come down to positive law in the long run?
Finally, there is in the appendix the Declaration itself, for convenience. How cool!
I recommend reading it first before you read the book itself.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Blasphemy by Alan M. Dershowitz is a concise and educational look into the beliefs of the Founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, in regards to religion. While the "creator" is often quoted by religious Conservatives to mean the God of Abraham, Dershowitz says that is an outright falsehood. Jefferson, Dershowitz says, was a Deist if anything, believing in an impersonal god and not one that watches over creation. The esteemed Founder also did not believe in miracles and the many other teachings of Judeo-Christian belief. Many other Founders felt the same way, and were not basing the new nation's laws and political system on anything from Scripture. In fact, Dershowitz makes a convincing case for how church/state separation is beneficial to religion, as it distances the religious institutions from blame for the excesses of the state.

While the book is short and sometimes meanders outside its own professed scope, it delivers a potent case against the attempt by religious Conservatives to keep a foot in the door to put their religious convictions into public policy. This book can be very instrumental in educating the reader on the true secular nature of the Declaration of Independence, warts and all. Despite the fact that for me it was "preaching to the choir" as it were, this book gave me a greater appreciation of the Declaration of Independence and the beliefs of the Founding Fathers in regards to the relation of religion and politics.

[Penelope Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a prime example of what I consider the American tendency to believe that what is in their foundational documents is right, rather than things that are right should be put into foundational documents. Through a long discussion, lauding at every moment the Declaration of Independence, Dershowitz does establish that the DoI is ambiguous about what God is invoked, that Jefferson clearly did not mean the god of the Christian right and that a separation of the federal government and church was intended by the founders.

He does a less good job of critiquing the DoI and the constitution, leaving them up on the pedestal and thus preserving the contested ground. He never really establishes how seriously the Declaration of Independence should be taken in considering the legal and social set-up of modern America (given the constitution is the governing document) or even if Jefferson and his committee intended any reliance to be place on it beyond the inspiration for a rebellion. He is also heavy on the "America Is The Greatest Nation Ever!" rhetoric.

In all, the dust jacket quote "A must for lovers of the founding documents who are concerned with the relations of church and state" is probably accurate. But if you don't have an unconditional love for said founding documents, I'd give it a miss.

[Susan Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title really tells what the thesis is and the authors understanding of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson who is considered the father of the Declaration. It also relates the beliefs in both religion and government of the "Founding Fathers" as it relates to the two founding documents of the United States. This book is quite detailed, and I found it beneficial to have some background on these documents and the life of Thomas Jefferson. Although the book is dated, published in 2007, the positions presented are very relative to conversations/differing opinions of the role of religion and government. A worthwhile read for any student of history or government.

My second reading of this book in April 2024 was even more prescient as the political atmosphere incorporates many views expressed in this book.

[John L · Rating 2 out of 5]

Watch out for religious fundamentalists of all stripes. Makes a very convincing case that the Religious right of this country has completely turned around the original concepts of our constitutions founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, to make it seem that the U.S. is a solely Christian country, founded on Christian principals. Don't believe 'em when they say that the word "Creator" was meant to be the Christian's bible's God. It wasn't.
A small book, only 170 pages or so, and small pages at that, but difficult reading. Not for your casual sitting at the beach relaxation time.

[Travis Gumm · Rating 4 out of 5]

It challenges the notion that the founding fathers (Jefferson in particular) were a bunch of bible thumping Christians. You come away from the book no doubt thinking that Jefferson was clearly an atheist based on the author's recounting of Jefferson's writings. The crux of the book seems to be whether or not 'nature's God' means the Christian God or a vague appeal to some higher than man authority to justify their secession from Great Britain.

[Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

A moderately illuminating examination of the recent attempt by the R.R. to use the Decl. of Ind. to conclude that this is a Christian Nation. I see this in my research all the time, so not a lot was new too me and Der. is, in my opinion, alarmist in his attitudes towards this strategy. Others not so immersed should like this well, howver, especially if they like being alarmed, which many do.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Does an excellent job in addressing the original interpretation of the dec of independence and how it has changed into current times. A nice read to show distinction,but not enough meat to draw any conclusions without sounding like a lawyer, picking at hairs.

[Adam Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great look into the views of Thomas Jefferson, the other founding fathers, and what the Declaration of Independence really says about church and state. Very competently undoes the "Christian nation" narrative of the Christian Right.

[Lynn Hunt · Rating 2 out of 5]

I couldn't really get into this book.....it didn't do anything for me. It didn't grab my attention but I tried to give it the benefit of doubt.

[Raymond · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview by a lawyer of the conflict between the constitution and the religious right's attempts force their viewpoints upon all Americans.

[Patti McDermott · Rating 1 out of 5]

I keep trying to be good and read non-fiction from time to time, but I rarely mamage to get through one and sadly, this book fell into that catagory.

[Jay Beaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Completely on point with the Founding Generations view of the world and religion with many references throughout. Great information to kill anyone's talking points.

[Tracy Black · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book! Thomas Jefferson is one of the most interesting characters in US history and Dershowitz did a wonderful job describing exactly what Jefferson DID believe, with all it's complexity.

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

An easy read, this book makes some great points. I especially liked some of the author's quotes at the end.