The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State

by Isaac Kramnick, R. Laurence Moore

"A timely, well-written and scholarly polemic for the separation of church and state."--Bernard Crick, The New Statesman The Godless Constitution is a ringing rebuke to the religious right's attempts, fueled by misguided and inaccurate interpretations of American history, to dismantle the wall between church and state erected by the country's founders. The authors, both distinguished scholars, revisit the historical roots of American religious freedom, paying particular attention to such figures as John Locke, Roger Williams, and especially Thomas Jefferson, and examine the controversies, up to the present day, over the proper place of religion in our political life. With a new chapter that explores the role of religion in the public life of George W. Bush's America, The Godless Constitution offers a bracing return to the first principles of American governance.

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

226 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Isaac Kramnick was an American political theorist, historian of political thought, political scientist, and the Richard J. Schwartz Professor of Government at Cornell University. He was a subject-matter expert on English and American political thought and history.

Reviews

[Cherise · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a Christian homeschooler (using Sonlight curriculum, if you want to know), I was originally put-off by the title of this book. Indeed, the first chapter seemed at times to veer into an anti-Christian rant. However, as the book progressed and I began to see the authors' point of view, I realized that they did have some very valid points. Two that I thought were most valuable were these:

1. If we ask the government to adopt religious slogans, we are asking it to overstep its bounds. If allow the government to make decisions on religious matters, we open the floodgates to all other kinds of infringements on our rights.

2. Christians (and other religious people) should not appeal to the government to fix society's problems. If we see a moral failing in our nation, it does not mean that the government has fallen down on its job: it means that the church has failed in its responsibility.

For these reasons, I do recommend this book to anyone who wonders what the right relationship should be between religion and politics. It does not hold all the answers, but to the thoughtful reader who is willing to consider and discuss the ideas it contains, it is another piece of the puzzle.

[Eric_W · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is axiomatic to argue the Founding Fathers had enormous respect for religion, believed firmly that human rights originated from a divine being, and accepted that democracy would benefit from a moral citizenry who believed in God. So why does the Constitution make no mention of a divine being?

Most states (with the notable exception of New York and Virginia) had religious tests for public office that were specifically designed to keep out Quakers and especially the dreaded Papists (Quakers were anathema for their pacifist and antislavery views). One anti-Constitution article widely distributed in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts worried that the proscription of religious tests for office in the new Constitution would cause the government to be overrun with "1st. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defense - 2dly. Mohometans, who ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity - 3dly. Deists [Most of the Founding Fathers were in fact Deists, a non-doctrinaire group that rejected a supernatural, anthropomorphic God who intervened in human events, believing instead that God was a supreme intelligence who set things in motion to operate forever according to natural, rational and scientific laws.:] abominable wretches - 4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when sent on horseback will ride to the devil - 6thly. Jews, etc. etc. [sic:]."

There is a tradition the authors refer to as "religious correctness," which takes the position that America is a religious, especially Christian, nation and there is one correct religious persuasion that must exclude all others. The religious right has gone to great extremes to prove the Constitution was created to perpetuate "a Christian
Order," (James Dobson) and they would like to see a country "once again governed by Christians" (Ralph Reed) - I don't know what he considers Carter, Bush and Reagan.

Kramnick and Moore state flatly and demonstrate convincingly that this viewpoint is wrong. The Founding Fathers wanted to disassociate a person's religious convictions from the value of his political opinion. The Founding Fathers thinking originated from several traditions: the religious thought of Roger Williams, the Baptists of that era, and the English liberal tradition "that put at the center of its political philosophy individuals free of government, enjoying property and thinking and praying as they wished."

Roger Williams' secular approach to government was paradoxically religious in nature. Because "he believed that the number of true Christians would always be a small proportion of the population in any society, he rejected the concept of a nation under God. For England or for the Massachusetts Bay colony to make a claim that it was a Christian polity, a civil government party to a divine contract, was arrogant blasphemy. "

The authors suggest that the writers of the Constitution adopted this secular stance to protect religion from government, and to prevent the trivialization that "religious correctness" standards would cause. They wanted religion to do "what it did best, to preserve the civil morality necessary to democracy, without laying upon it the burdens of being tied to the fortunes of this or that political faction."

[Dustin · Rating 1 out of 5]

The complete lack of citations, footnotes or otherwise, stresses the fact that this book is a poorly researched and often inaccurate book.
While the author's intent may be good, this book fails to deliver on any sort of academic or casual level.
Unfortunately, there is little to recommend.

[G.K. Noyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

The founders of America were very aware that the biggest threat to true democracy, and especially to the freedom of conscience and beliefs we should all have, is the fact that majorities (Christian, in our case) tend to crush rights for minorities. Exactly what the religious right is attempting in our day, once again. And exactly what we reproach certain Muslim countries with today. It's also fabulous to discover in this book how much wiser our forebears were than we are today.

Jefferson recounts in his Autobiography how, when his proposal for a religious freedom bill was finally passed, someone proposed to add that "Jesus Christ, author of our holy religion" was against "coercion" in beliefs. But the insertion was "rejected by a great majority," Jefferson adds, because they meant to include Jews, Hindus, Muslims and even non-believers in the protection of that law. As further proof of just how well most Americans understood this at the time, Jefferson was elected President - twice - as were his close allies, James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," and James Monroe after him.

Puritan-turned-Baptist, Roger Williams, felt the same, for other reasons in the 1600s. SImply put, mixing politics with religion corrupts religion. Governments claiming to speak for God is arrogant blasphemy. That had been the pretension of all governments for ten centuries in his day, and it had led only to hypocrisy, persecutions and 'terrible sinning' on the part of the churches, and other rulers.

Even the question of whether God exists should not be before our courts. They are not competent to judge. It is the most ridiculous pretension of all. That's why it's called "faith." You cannot legislate faith, whatever lip-service you force on people. Legislating it, as all Christianity did for a thousand years, only creates atheists. Just look at so many popes, like the Borgias. Does anyone think for a second they believed in God? Then look at our politicians who will say anything for a vote - who wave the Bible without the slightest shred of "Christian" charity for "the poor and under-trodden" in their actions. We used to be smarter than that as a country. At least, the majority were.

The authors of this book say, at one point, that if we are ever to add another amendment to the Constitution regarding religion, as so many have tried, and still wish to, it should say that any elected official who claims to speak for God should be immediately impeached. And they are right. That is what the Enlightenment era had finally understood, and legislated. And obviously, those intelligent basic principles are not being clearly taught anymore.

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

You've probably heard various people claim that America was founded as a "Christian nation" and that it still holds this title. Most people accept that statement as unquestionably true, and even those who recognize the historical error tend not to regard it as seriously as they should. This book is about how the framers of the Constitution explicitly wanted to ensure that American never became a Christian nation, or a nation of any religion, for that matter. Using airtight historical evidence and sound, steady reasoning, the authors make a convincing case that a) America was specifically and deliberately founded as a secular state, b) the religious right has misinterpreted and warped that intention and tried to rewrite history in the process, and c) Americans should recognize this discrepancy and stop letting politicians prostitute their religious beliefs for votes. The authors' main argument is that when religion and politics become commingled, the end result is nothing but division and dispute, and no one is served but the politicians who accrue votes by pandering to religious believers. The mixing of religion and politics, they argue, makes both religion and politics ugly.

This book is a triumphant support of the separation of church and state, but the authors' tone is never arrogant or strident. Everything they say, they can back up with evidence and logic, and while they do argue vehemently in favor of keeping religion out of politics and politics out of religion, they are respectful of religious believers throughout the entire book. They are very generous and fair about acknowledging the errors and blind spots of liberals and nonbelievers too, so the book never comes across as unfairly biased.

Anyone who cares at all about the current direction of politics or who has an interest in secularism will really enjoy this book. And even if you're one of those people who sees no problem mingling religion and government, you won't feel attacked if you read this book. But hopefully it will change your mind.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 1996 - I would love to see a revised, updated edition of this book as the conflicts and politicization of religion has increased to a fever pitch in this country. The attacks and misuse of religion in the past 4 years would certainly bring the condemnation of Jefferson and the other founding fathers - trying to dominate and impose a religious test (the myth of the muslim President as a "threat" to the country and a dis-qualification) and wide-spread criticism of law and policy - not on any objective, rational basis, but rather solely on it being an invitation to incur the wrath of an almighty. The debate on healthcare insurance somehow infringes upon on religious liberty of private business (including church run businesses) not only ignores the fact that the private religious views can never trump law, but that the beliefs of the business owner or entity, cannot be trumped (setting a private religious law higher than public law) but that the beliefs of the owner are allowed to trump the private beliefs of their own employees. The damaging effects of religion and its mixture with the state was exactly why there is not a single mention of god in the Constitution. Since they do not have truth on their side, they attempt to re-define the founding fathers very clear intentions - and this they do with a passion - consider the recently recalled disgraceful book (with the very ironic title of Jefferson's Lies) on Jefferson, trying to make the case that he did not want a separation of church and state. As Jefferson and others feared, allowing a church or sect to somehow "establish" itself would lead to the demise of the state, yet this seems to be the burning cause for too many of our fellow citizens.

[Kyrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the title and the source (Sonlight Curriculum) I fully expected this to be an attack on politcal types who abuse the constitution. I was wrong. It was an interesting essay on why the founding fathers left god out of the constitution and why trying to put god back into it is dangerous. It made some things clear to me that I've felt for a long time, but not been able to articulate, such as that our law is not really based on the 10 commandments, which, as the authors say, becomes clear if one sits down and reads through them. Our law has to do with things other than moral behaviour. And they point out that godless Europe's government does far better with taking care of its citizens than our allegedly religiously based one does. They don't make a case to get rid of religion. They just make a good case for why religion and government should be kept apart.

[Christopher Knutson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever wondered the United States, with no official religion, is generally so much more religious than countries that endorse a particular faith, such as the Church of England? Would you be surprised to know that prominent rabbis and christian leaders are members of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? This book carefully illustrates why separation of chuch and state should be at least as important to the christian as it is to the atheist.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historical account of the religious beliefs of America's founding fathers. Very convincing and persuasive. Very logical without a lot of irrational idealogy.

[Syd Leverette Mooney · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It is not legitimate for political leaders to mobilize religion in order to invest their argument about moral consequences with certainty, to imagine that their understanding of God’s will should be shared by everyone.” That’s it, that’s the review.

[Vannessa Anderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Godless Constitution was an interesting read as it explained a lot about the mindset of the self-righteous and why we must be vigilant in curtailing the actions due to the self-righteous being a detriment to our freedom.

[Les Gehman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every American concerned about the religious right's never ending attack on the constitution by trying to re-write history (I'm looking at you David Barton) needs to read this book. It completely destroys the claims that the founders of the United States had any intention of creating a christian nation, and proves that the first amendment really means what it says as far as separating church and state. I found it fascinating that the constitution was under attack by the church as an "atheist" document before the ink was even dry. Also, it turns out that baptists were initially supporters of the separation of church and state (before they had sufficient numbers to try and push their misguided morals into government).

My only nit to pick is that the book really needed endnotes. The authors state that because the book is intended for a general audience and that the material cited is familiar to historians and political scientists, that they have foregone including footnotes. However, for those of us (in the general audience) who are not historians and political scientists, endnotes would have been very useful in further study. Admittedly, complete endnotes would probably add 100 pages to the book, but they could have easily been provided via a web site.

[Shea Mastison · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a generalized history on the Constitution; and an explanation as to what exactly the Framers' intent was, when creating a wall of separation between church and state. The authors make a compelling-enough argument, and actually truly seem to believe that a separation between church and state is good for both sides.

Jefferson, of course, looms large in their arguments. His political career is used as a model by which many other politicians are judged; and the authors put a lot of weight into his decisions regarding religion during his term as president.

Overall, this is a pretty decent read. Pick it up if you run into it at the library, or a used book store.

[Anagha Uppal · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read The Godless Constitution after The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America truly raised my interest in the subject. This was a fascinating and enlightening read. The Right to Be Wrong was very much influenced by this book (but opposite to its intention). However, one has to read both side of a contentious debate to get "the full picture", and that's precisely what The Godless Constitution accomplishes.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit drab stylistically, but the content is the gem here. Explains in great depth why god is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and draws a clear line from the Enlightenment, to John Locke, through Roger Williams, and straight to Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Framers. A well balanced examination that explains why the wall of separation benefits not only the state, but also the millions of America's faithful.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

The founding fathers not only intentionally left religion out of the Constitution, they removed religious tests as a prerequisite for holding office. It also turns out that the separation of church and state benefits religion because it removes the corrupting influence of government. What a concept.

[Denise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well thought out, valid points, easy read.

[Earthchild · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good case made for the fact of our founders creating a secular state. Some were religious; some were not but they agreed that the government had no business in religion and vice-versa.

[Tucker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Writing in 1996, the authors find that the U.S. Constitution is, indeed, a secular document, but hardly anti-religion. Instead, the framers simply "recognized that social peace and personal happiness are better served by separating religious correctness from public policy.” (p. 177) “The creation of a godless constitution…was an act of confidence in religion. It intended to let religion do what it did best, to preserve the civil morality necessary to democracy, without laying upon it the burdens of being tied to the fortunes of this or that political faction.” (p. 24) The state can as easily threaten religion as it can empower it.

Some basic questions are laid out here in a way that is simultaneously clear and thought provoking. For example:

In the 1620s, the Puritans established a colony where church and state amounted to the same thing. By the 1630s, there was already one prominent and infamous dissenter, Roger Williams. As a dedicated Christian himself, he believed that, in any population, serious Christians would always be in a minority, and he preferred to allow church and state to manage different domains of human life. In the history of the United States, as it turned out, a majority of Christians would generally side with him. (p. 48) (That is an irony, isn’t it — just as most people believe themselves to be "above average," a majority always believes itself to be in the minority of the religiously elect.) A basic problem with the supposed separation of church and state, however, is knowing and agreeing exactly where to draw the line. When do "the religious biases of voters become an illegitimate injection of God into politics"? Politicians come from those very same religious communities; if they are not religious themselves, they must at least be elected by religious people. It isn't obvious at what point, or in what manner, people should temporarily set aside their religiously informed beliefs at the door of politics. (p. 61) One form of this conundrum appears in the book's introduction: Catholics generally oppose abortion, but what does that mean for anti-abortion religious statements made in the context of “a close congressional race where one candidate supports a woman’s right to an abortion and the other does not?” (p. 9) Is that permissible speech?

Reflecting on the 1980s when Southern Baptists were allying with conservative politicians to drum up a political cry about moral decay, the authors raise the point: If the state can ban people whose sexuality supposedly doesn’t conform to some religious tradition (never mind how broad or narrow the religious tradition may be), then the state “can ban Jews and can ban Baptists,” too. In other words, when religious people use religion to politically constrain others, they are establishing a rational basis for their own oppression, too—as there is never only one version of religion. (p. 129) The authors point out another contradiction: Pat Robertson claims that the United States is a Christian nation because its population is 90 percent Christian; he complains about general moral decay throughout society; yet he turns his criticism outward, rather than inward at his own majority demographic who “clearly…are deeply implicated in the [alleged] decline.” In Robertson’s view, “the villain for spiritual decline is the state,” even though the state “never in this country carried the burden for maintaining the spiritual health of the people or for teaching them how to pray.” Why turn to the state now to enforce a moral code? “Roger Williams would have smelled a rat. If religion isn’t making people who profess to believe in it good, neither can the Republican or the Democratic Party.” (p. 156)

[Amara Julien · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book because the author uses solid, fact-based evidence while also acknowledging criticism from both modern readers and from people living when the Constitution was written and effectively responds to those concerns. Even though the author’s stance is clear and well-supported, the book can at times feel slightly contradictory, especially when it touches on the idea that a truly “godless government” has never fully existed. The author shows that, despite the lack of explicit religious precedent in the Constitution, political parties both then and now still use religion as a dividing tool, from movements like temperance to the ongoing association of certain parties with particular faith identities. In my opinion, this connection somewhat weakens the argument for a complete separation between church and state, because if everyday citizens(past and present)continue to seek guidance from religion in political life, it becomes difficult to fully accept the notion of a completely godless Constitution.

[Fraser Sherman · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you follow politics you may have heard the claims that the Constitution is modeled on the Bible in some fashion and that we were always intended as a Christian nation. As this book shows, not so.
The Constitution was, at the time it was drafted, seen as a secular, almost anti-religious document by many people. No religious test for federal office. No references to God or Christianity. Claiming government derived from the people, not from God almighty. Government would do its thing, which did not include laying down the rules of any sect or creed as federal law.
I was aware of much of this from other reading but this book still does a good job showing it to be the case. It then discusses the practical questions such as where we draw the line between a leader whose decisions are influenced by their faith and one who wants to impose their faith on others.

[Amee · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book and its premise, but it came across more as two authors who had an axe to grind with the Christian right voting block. The quality of writing and scholarship was particularly poor in the last chapter, “George W. Bush and the Wall of Separation.” The authors had some very interesting points, but sadly these were very poorly presented.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well written work that lays out how while the Founding Fathers may have been religious they purposely created a system of government that doesn't endorse any religion because the mixture of religion and government interferes with and cheapens both. An engrossing and engaging read.

[Rachel Gross]

Dense and repetitive. While important, too hard to digest.

[Deborah · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors make a fantastic case for the preservation of our secular government. It's too bad the title is apt to be interpreted at once as abrasive to religious conservatives. In fact, the book is very respectful towards religion.

At the core of the authors' argument is that our constitution came dangerously close to not being ratified over the issue of the separation of church and state. A significant number of delegates (although not quite a majority) thought the constitution should have a clear religious purpose, contain references to Jesus Christ, and require a "religious test" for those seeking public office. Upon losing every single demand, they renounced the document which was ultimately ratified as "godless." (Thus the title reflects not the authors' attitude towards our constitution, but rather the attitude of those delegates who renounced the constitution on the basis that it was not Christian.)

Furthermore, the authors point out that several times in the history of our country, religious zealots have tried to insert God into the constitution...and failed. One such instance occurred following the Civil War, which some believed to be a punishment from God for our failure to give our nation a religious purpose in the Constitution. Good ol' Abraham Lincoln refused to entertain the suggestion at all.

Contrary to the story that modern-day religious conservatives try to sell: that the country was founded by Christians with the intention of forming a Christian government, the authors remind us that although the founders of our country included many religious people and men who respected the role of religion in the community, they purposefully endeavored to create a secular government with no religious purpose.

The other religious-conservative myth busted by the authors is the one claiming that our Christian government has been under the assault of athiest liberals since the 1960s. In fact, the truth is almost the opposite: our secular government has been encroached upon by Christian propaganda since the Cold War (so as to distinguish us from the godless Communists).

[Max Twine · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book definitely suffers from fact that it was penned jointly by two authors. Co-written books naturally have a hard time establishing an engaging literary style, if for no other reason than that two people are not likely to share a uniform sense of humor or writerly voice. The reading is often dry and, despite its svelte build, the whole book is kind of a slog.

Also, the authors are frustratingly deferential to faith and faith-based arguments. Having very recently read Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, both of whom are strident in calling for new enlightenment in this country, I couldn't help but feel the authors pulled their punches. But then again, it's hard to be a radical when you're a sitting professor at Cornell, and harder still if your co-writer has to sign on to everything you say.

While the background on the secular philosophies of the founding fathers was interesting, that story has been told a thousand times and couldn't save The Godless Constitutions from mediocrity.

[Emily · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book labels itself a polemic, so it's not surprising that it comes off as a little sound-bitey and shallow. But it doesn't fall over the edge into inanity, and it offers a pretty succinct answer to arguments that the founding generation intended America as a Christian commonwealth by tracing the fight to keep God out of the language of the Constitution from 1787 through the 19th century. I'm pretty sure the authors' method of arguing this would convince exactly no one who has fixed their mind on an opposite point of view. But polemics aren't really for changing minds, are they? I feel more set in my ways and better equipped to articulate them after reading this book, so in that sense it succeeded admirably.

[Amy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wow!! I am so glad to be done with this book. While I certainly learned a lot, stretching my own opinions and the reasons behind them, I often found the authors tended to be full of their own opinion and blind in many areas. They bash Pat Robinson and President George W. Bush like punching bags, but also refer to Hilary Clinton with some pretty rude language that I wouldn't repeat.
Despite my general dislike for the book, I think it makes a challenging read and am greatful I had to read it for school.

[Patrick Farr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good explanation of our four father's decision for a secular govenrment, even as most of them were Christians themselves. Having seen the ill effects of a state religion and having escaped it, America's fathers did not want to repeat the mistake in the new land. Very good fact based argument for secular government. It does not reflect badly on organized religion, as the title of the book may lead you to believe. Only that it stay separate from the state.

[Sam Norton]

Very well-formed ideas. The authors are very correct when they say that a true merging of the public and the religious is always dangerous. While each may rightly effect the other, the intentional introduction of the religious into public life is clearly something to be avoided. I further agree with the authors theory that one can be religious and believe in the secular nature of our government, but putting this theory into practice may prove difficult.