What do you think?
Rate this book
Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers
In her lively refutation of modern claims about America's religious origins, Brooke Allen looks back at the late eighteenth century and shows decisively that the United States was founded not on Christian principles at all but on Enlightenment ideas. Moral Minority presents a powerful case that the unique legal framework the Founding Fathers created was designed according to the humanist ideals of Enlightenment God entered the picture only as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuous by his absence. The guiding spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Ms. Allen explains, was not Jesus Christ but John Locke. In direct and accessible prose, she provides fascinating chapters on the religious lives of the six men she considers the key Founding Franklin, Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. Far from being the conventional pious Christians we too often imagine, these men were skeptical intellectuals, in some cases not even Christians at all. Moral Minority presents unforgettable images of our iconic Jefferson taking a razor to the Bible and cutting out every miraculous and supernatural occurrence; Washington rewriting speeches others had crafted for him, so as to omit all references to Jesus Christ; Franklin and Adams confiding their doubts about Christ's divinity; Madison expressing deep disapproval over the appointment of chaplains to Congress and the armed forces, and of what we would now call "faith-based" initiatives. Enlivened by generous portions of the founders' own incomparable prose, Moral Minority makes an impassioned and scintillating contribution to the ongoing debate—more heated now than ever before—over the separation of church and state and the role (or lack thereof) of religion in government.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
17 people are currently reading
574 people want to read
About the author
Brooke Allen
31 books28 followersBrooke Allen's critical writings appear frequently in the New York Times Book Review, the Atlantic Monthly, The New Criterion, The Hudson Review, and The Nation. Her Twentieth-Century Attitudes was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. Her most recent book is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
October 20, 2012
The Founding Fathers were broad-minded intelluctuals, clear products of the international Enlightenment. They tended to see religious zeal as an irrational, divisive, and even atavistic passion that constituted a threat to human society. They questioned each and every received idea they had been taught. They were deeply read in political philosophy , interested in science, and well versed in theological matters. They consistently challenged the religious dogma they heard from the pulpit. The eighteenth century was not an age of faith but an age of science and skepticism, and the American Founding Fathers were in its vanguard.
These men were not advocates for a monolithic notion of "God and Country," as promoters of a Christian America would now have us believe. They were precisely the opposite: the very prototypes, in fact, of the East Coast intellectuals we are always being warned against by today's religious right.
Above quoted from the preface of the book. Awesome and refreshing read. A must read book!
These men were not advocates for a monolithic notion of "God and Country," as promoters of a Christian America would now have us believe. They were precisely the opposite: the very prototypes, in fact, of the East Coast intellectuals we are always being warned against by today's religious right.
Above quoted from the preface of the book. Awesome and refreshing read. A must read book!
July 18, 2018
Well written and informative, this is an excellent resource examining the debates and ideas that led to the conclusion of the Founding Fathers to insist on the separation of church and state. Well indexed and with a section at the end of sources, the reader can follow up on any of the subjects discussed.
February 6, 2021
Allen's book is worthwhile for a lot of reasons; it pushes back against the nonsensical and ahistorical perception of the United States as a "Christian" "nation" that continues to plague a certain type of fundamentalist adjacent low church Evangelical in the United States. It also leads the reader to ask an important question: why would you want to transform a group of largely anti-Trinitarian [at best] Christians into the type of people David Barton et al use to perpetuate their story?
August 30, 2009
I initially bought this book because I saw a praise blurb on the back from Darryl Hart, author of the book A Secular Faith and promoter of Two Kingdom theology. I thought I would see what he was reading and praising. Moral Minority is a well written book that accomplishes what it sets out to do. Brooke Allen establishes through copious and sometimes very lengthy quotes, that many of our Founding Fathers were very far from orthodox Christianity and had no intention of establishing a "Christian nation". Though Allen only looks at six of the thirty-one signers of the constitution (or six of the fifty-five delegates), she picks six major ones to look at (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton). Not only that, but the views of these men prevailed at the various debates and one would think that if these were the only six voices of opposition to establishing some kind of shining city upon a hill, they would have been argued down, or at least voted down.
Allen structures her book with each of the first six chapters taking one of the above men as its topic, she then has a chapter on 1787 And Beyond, where she looks the role religion has played in the government, veering more separationist until the late 70's early 80's, around the Year of the Evangelical and Reagan's Year of the Bible. After that she has a chapter on The World That Produced the Fathers, placing them in the enlightenment, skeptical, and deistic world of Voltaire &c. She concludes with appendices, one a letter from Jefferson and another some writings from Madison.
As I said above, the book accomplishes what it sets out to do. In doing so, though, the Founding Fathers come off as offering the same rhetoric we hear from the New Atheists today. Most of them, especially Jefferson, are religious ignoramuses.
I wonder why Allen praises them when anyone with a smattering of basic Christian theology would not make the mistakes and blunders Jefferson did when trying to attack Christian theology. She seems delighted by Jefferson's enlightened skepticism, where he tells others to question everything and place all their beliefs on the table. However, Jefferson forgets to place trust in his cognitive faculties on the table as well. Moreover, those on the left frequently point out the moral deficiencies of the Founders and then use this to critique Christianity. But now the pendulum swings the other way. It turns out that we have reason to give Enlightenment morality the stink eye. One can't have it both ways.
Jefferson, like a two year old, mocks the Trinity because "he doesn't get it." As if there could be no truths the metaphysical distinctions of which are so fine as to surpass the capabilities of a finite mind. This is an extreme rationalism and is philosophically beset with problems. Jefferson also said to subject everything to reason and look at the evidence it has. If none can be found, drop the belief. However, Jefferson constantly referred to the existence of a past and assumed the existence of other minds, neither of which can be proved satisfactory to every (the older Peter Unger, for one) rational mind by use of propositional evidence. I could go on, but the point is that secularists shouldn't be to quick to champion Jefferson as a paradigm of philosophical and religious sophistication since he is rather closer to the backwoods fundies secularists love to hate than they would like to admit. And this is the same with many of the portraits Allen paints.
One more example is Benjamin Franklin. Franklin loathed the religious people who would hold back from getting involved in what Franklin considered to be a good moral cause because of their beliefs. Doctrine is looked down upon, confessing propositions that determine your worldview is shunned (how modernly emergent!). However, Franklin recounts a story about when he came into contact with one George Whitefield. Whitefield was asking for a donation to a children's orphanage. Franklin disagreed with some of the details (like Whitfield’s desire to make it a Christian orphanage) and so he refused to give money when Whitfield came asking. Here, Franklin stood by his beliefs on certain matters and let it affect a "good", i.e., the building of an orphanage. This was hypocritical (but it did escape the "critical" eye of Allen). Allen tried to set of the Founders as heroes (evident by her laudatory prose when speaking of them and her condescending prose when speaking of the religious fundamentalist). However, she often makes them come off looking like intellectual children. With a few changes in agenda, style and content, the book could have been called: Bumbling Bafoons: Our Philosophically and Theologically Ignorant Founding Fathers.
Another question (or maybe critique) of the book is that it appears Allen is advocating for a naked public square and thinks this is the view of the Founders. However, as with many things, truth is somewhere in the middle. I certainly don't advocate or argue for a sacred public square, thinking that the Republican party is "Gawds party", but I think the religious nones who advocate for the naked square, and think this was the original intent of the Founders, are wrong. Those advocating for the naked square seem to highlight the "no establishment" part of the first amendment more than, or to the exclusion of, the "no prohibiting of religious freedom" part.
Allen cites Jefferson's refusal to make a national day of Thanksgiving when he was President but leaves out the bit about Jefferson establishing one when he was Governor. When Hugo Black cited Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, he used it as a pretext to argue that the federal government and the states shouldn't establish a religion, but this was probably not Jefferson's view and was not the view of the majority of the signers. One of the premier constitutional scholars today, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School, makes this point as well and he is no friend of the Right, let alone the Religious Right. So do historians and political science scholars Woods and Gutzman in Who Killed the Constitution.
There's also the oft-debated question of whether secularists are religiously neutral. And there's the question of whether a full-blown legal secularism is in fact historical (Os Guinness has a good discussion of this in his Case for Civility (ch. 5)), or possible (Roy Clouser has a great discussion of this in The Myth of Religious Neutrality). My point with all of this isn't to argue whether a naked public square is right or wrong, but simply to take issue with a simplistic reading of the data. I am a fan of the establishment clause, and a pretty strong reading of it too. Ironically, it is this clause that has made us the most religious nation ever. It's part of why we get to discuss religion in the public square and why Christianity is alive and well in our Philosophy departments, unlike European countries, who had or have established religions. Allen points out that Jefferson went over to France and helped sow seeds for their revolution. But one of France's main problems was its war on religion. Amir (the Yale scholar cited above) points out that Jefferson was an absolutist. He didn't think that the Federal government had anything to say on matters of religion. The French Revolution, however, definitely had some things to say. They turned the streets red with the blood of both king and priest. Thus (one reason for) their failure (says me). So I wonder if Allen was too simplistic, though I grant she wasn't trying to get into this issue (but she had no problems sniping, so I get to snipe back). This is probably one reason Hart liked the book, but then, agreements with Hart aside, I find his assessment of "The Great Experiment" to be on the simplistic side as well.
Getting back to the point, if you are under the illusion that Washington was really the pious chap praying at Valley Forge, or that the Founding Fathers were all confessional, or at least Evangelical (whatever that word means), Christians, then this book will quickly disabuse you of that myth. Is/Was America A Christian Nation? That depends. Certainly many of her citizens profess the Christian religion. It's the majority. But it was never founded to be “A Christian Nation”, and the religious beliefs of (some of) the Founders are not what we need “to get back to,” since the road of Moralism and Deism lead to hell. I do agree with Hart when he says of Allen’s book that it “suggests that if America gets religion the way many advocate, Christianity will suffer.” But I would go further: if Secular America gets "skepticism" the way many advocate, Secularism will suffer. If the Founding Fathers Allen looked at are not paradigms of theological and pietistic desiderata (and they aren't), neither are they paradigms of atheological and skeptical desiderata.
Allen structures her book with each of the first six chapters taking one of the above men as its topic, she then has a chapter on 1787 And Beyond, where she looks the role religion has played in the government, veering more separationist until the late 70's early 80's, around the Year of the Evangelical and Reagan's Year of the Bible. After that she has a chapter on The World That Produced the Fathers, placing them in the enlightenment, skeptical, and deistic world of Voltaire &c. She concludes with appendices, one a letter from Jefferson and another some writings from Madison.
As I said above, the book accomplishes what it sets out to do. In doing so, though, the Founding Fathers come off as offering the same rhetoric we hear from the New Atheists today. Most of them, especially Jefferson, are religious ignoramuses.
I wonder why Allen praises them when anyone with a smattering of basic Christian theology would not make the mistakes and blunders Jefferson did when trying to attack Christian theology. She seems delighted by Jefferson's enlightened skepticism, where he tells others to question everything and place all their beliefs on the table. However, Jefferson forgets to place trust in his cognitive faculties on the table as well. Moreover, those on the left frequently point out the moral deficiencies of the Founders and then use this to critique Christianity. But now the pendulum swings the other way. It turns out that we have reason to give Enlightenment morality the stink eye. One can't have it both ways.
Jefferson, like a two year old, mocks the Trinity because "he doesn't get it." As if there could be no truths the metaphysical distinctions of which are so fine as to surpass the capabilities of a finite mind. This is an extreme rationalism and is philosophically beset with problems. Jefferson also said to subject everything to reason and look at the evidence it has. If none can be found, drop the belief. However, Jefferson constantly referred to the existence of a past and assumed the existence of other minds, neither of which can be proved satisfactory to every (the older Peter Unger, for one) rational mind by use of propositional evidence. I could go on, but the point is that secularists shouldn't be to quick to champion Jefferson as a paradigm of philosophical and religious sophistication since he is rather closer to the backwoods fundies secularists love to hate than they would like to admit. And this is the same with many of the portraits Allen paints.
One more example is Benjamin Franklin. Franklin loathed the religious people who would hold back from getting involved in what Franklin considered to be a good moral cause because of their beliefs. Doctrine is looked down upon, confessing propositions that determine your worldview is shunned (how modernly emergent!). However, Franklin recounts a story about when he came into contact with one George Whitefield. Whitefield was asking for a donation to a children's orphanage. Franklin disagreed with some of the details (like Whitfield’s desire to make it a Christian orphanage) and so he refused to give money when Whitfield came asking. Here, Franklin stood by his beliefs on certain matters and let it affect a "good", i.e., the building of an orphanage. This was hypocritical (but it did escape the "critical" eye of Allen). Allen tried to set of the Founders as heroes (evident by her laudatory prose when speaking of them and her condescending prose when speaking of the religious fundamentalist). However, she often makes them come off looking like intellectual children. With a few changes in agenda, style and content, the book could have been called: Bumbling Bafoons: Our Philosophically and Theologically Ignorant Founding Fathers.
Another question (or maybe critique) of the book is that it appears Allen is advocating for a naked public square and thinks this is the view of the Founders. However, as with many things, truth is somewhere in the middle. I certainly don't advocate or argue for a sacred public square, thinking that the Republican party is "Gawds party", but I think the religious nones who advocate for the naked square, and think this was the original intent of the Founders, are wrong. Those advocating for the naked square seem to highlight the "no establishment" part of the first amendment more than, or to the exclusion of, the "no prohibiting of religious freedom" part.
Allen cites Jefferson's refusal to make a national day of Thanksgiving when he was President but leaves out the bit about Jefferson establishing one when he was Governor. When Hugo Black cited Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, he used it as a pretext to argue that the federal government and the states shouldn't establish a religion, but this was probably not Jefferson's view and was not the view of the majority of the signers. One of the premier constitutional scholars today, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School, makes this point as well and he is no friend of the Right, let alone the Religious Right. So do historians and political science scholars Woods and Gutzman in Who Killed the Constitution.
There's also the oft-debated question of whether secularists are religiously neutral. And there's the question of whether a full-blown legal secularism is in fact historical (Os Guinness has a good discussion of this in his Case for Civility (ch. 5)), or possible (Roy Clouser has a great discussion of this in The Myth of Religious Neutrality). My point with all of this isn't to argue whether a naked public square is right or wrong, but simply to take issue with a simplistic reading of the data. I am a fan of the establishment clause, and a pretty strong reading of it too. Ironically, it is this clause that has made us the most religious nation ever. It's part of why we get to discuss religion in the public square and why Christianity is alive and well in our Philosophy departments, unlike European countries, who had or have established religions. Allen points out that Jefferson went over to France and helped sow seeds for their revolution. But one of France's main problems was its war on religion. Amir (the Yale scholar cited above) points out that Jefferson was an absolutist. He didn't think that the Federal government had anything to say on matters of religion. The French Revolution, however, definitely had some things to say. They turned the streets red with the blood of both king and priest. Thus (one reason for) their failure (says me). So I wonder if Allen was too simplistic, though I grant she wasn't trying to get into this issue (but she had no problems sniping, so I get to snipe back). This is probably one reason Hart liked the book, but then, agreements with Hart aside, I find his assessment of "The Great Experiment" to be on the simplistic side as well.
Getting back to the point, if you are under the illusion that Washington was really the pious chap praying at Valley Forge, or that the Founding Fathers were all confessional, or at least Evangelical (whatever that word means), Christians, then this book will quickly disabuse you of that myth. Is/Was America A Christian Nation? That depends. Certainly many of her citizens profess the Christian religion. It's the majority. But it was never founded to be “A Christian Nation”, and the religious beliefs of (some of) the Founders are not what we need “to get back to,” since the road of Moralism and Deism lead to hell. I do agree with Hart when he says of Allen’s book that it “suggests that if America gets religion the way many advocate, Christianity will suffer.” But I would go further: if Secular America gets "skepticism" the way many advocate, Secularism will suffer. If the Founding Fathers Allen looked at are not paradigms of theological and pietistic desiderata (and they aren't), neither are they paradigms of atheological and skeptical desiderata.
May 10, 2013
The first six chapters of Brooke Allen's Moral Minority examine the writings and speeches of six of the founding fathers: Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. She helps bring some much needed perspective to their views on Christianity and on religious freedom. At times she mounts her soapbox to decry the activities of the religious right today, but for the most part she stays on task.
The final chapter, which purports to examine the world that produced the founders and their political philosophy, devolves into a relentless criticism of Christianity. She has no use for it, and that comes through loud and clear.
I am a Christian, though not a member of the religious right (or left for that matter). I picked up this book because I have tired of hearing folks in my 'camp' lift up the founders as godly Christian men who would fit right in at my Baptist church today. They weren't and they wouldn't. It's pointless to argue about whether they were Deists or Unitarians or not. Those who espouse the Christian Nation notion are fond of pointing to some pious excerpt from one of the founders writings as proof of their evangelical orthodoxy. As a Christian, I understand that someone can say something pious and orthodox, while not actually believing it (something politicians, like the founders, do all of the time to pander to Christian voters). I can't understand how a devout evangelical Christian could espouse unorthodox doctrines (or belittle orthodox ones, like the deity of Christ) or slanderous to Christ, which the six men in this book did.
The final chapter, which purports to examine the world that produced the founders and their political philosophy, devolves into a relentless criticism of Christianity. She has no use for it, and that comes through loud and clear.
I am a Christian, though not a member of the religious right (or left for that matter). I picked up this book because I have tired of hearing folks in my 'camp' lift up the founders as godly Christian men who would fit right in at my Baptist church today. They weren't and they wouldn't. It's pointless to argue about whether they were Deists or Unitarians or not. Those who espouse the Christian Nation notion are fond of pointing to some pious excerpt from one of the founders writings as proof of their evangelical orthodoxy. As a Christian, I understand that someone can say something pious and orthodox, while not actually believing it (something politicians, like the founders, do all of the time to pander to Christian voters). I can't understand how a devout evangelical Christian could espouse unorthodox doctrines (or belittle orthodox ones, like the deity of Christ) or slanderous to Christ, which the six men in this book did.
October 26, 2020
This ought to be required reading for all those who believe the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Bible thumpers will be taken aback to learn that the founding fathers worked very hard to keep religion and government separate, and for good reason. Too many competing creeds posed the dangerous possibility that one would become the official religion of state, and that ambitious ministers would fight for political and well as spiritual hegemony.
Clearly written with large helpings of direct, well-chosen quotes, this book is invaluable in our mixed-up times when shameless politicians use religion to manipulate the masses.
Clearly written with large helpings of direct, well-chosen quotes, this book is invaluable in our mixed-up times when shameless politicians use religion to manipulate the masses.
December 29, 2008
Highly recommend this book. It really responds to the common assertion that the founders were Christians and this is a Christian nation. The answer the book gives is "yes.... but." Most of the founding fathers were deists, so their idea of Christianity was very different than many of the fundamentalist sects we see today. The book really explains the importance of the separation of church and state to the founding fathers. After reading it, I had a much greater appreciation of the amazing idealism and foresight of our founding fathers.
January 22, 2012
Great information especially to counter the lies about this being a "Christian Nation" or that there is no separation of church and state. This book uses the founding fathers' own writings to clearly show they intended a complete separation of church and state.
The reason I gave it only three stars is because it was difficult to read. It used so much of the founding fathers' own words - which is a good and important thing because it shows what they really thought in contrast to the spin that is out there. But they wrote in antiquated English that was a work-out to get through.
The reason I gave it only three stars is because it was difficult to read. It used so much of the founding fathers' own words - which is a good and important thing because it shows what they really thought in contrast to the spin that is out there. But they wrote in antiquated English that was a work-out to get through.
Read
December 11, 2007The founding fathers were quite clear about separation of church and state; they advocated tolerance of different beliefs and religions, but did not adopt any national religion. All grew up in a religious context, but many were secularists and "deists" and believed that the great philosophers of history, the 17th and 18th centuries provided the basis for the American ethics and political system with its observance of "rights".
April 28, 2010
I didn't finish the book. Not because it wasn't interesting. It's just one of those books that those who need to read won't read it, or they'll read it and find a way to rationalize away it's points.
If you find yourself in frequent arguments with those who think the founding fathers were perfect Christians then this book will help you back up your points on what kind of men they really were.
But I don't like having such arguments.
If you find yourself in frequent arguments with those who think the founding fathers were perfect Christians then this book will help you back up your points on what kind of men they really were.
But I don't like having such arguments.
August 5, 2011
Wonderful single source debunking of the myth of the US government being founded on Christian principles. Nothing could be further from the truth as Ms. Allen illustrates. Her case is laid out by citing the writings and biographies of the six most visible of the Founders: Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton. Should be required reading for Beck, O'Reilly, the Tea Party Darlings and anyone else spouting that nonsense.
June 22, 2015
I couldn't even finish this book. The first several chapters basically repeat over and over again that the various founding fathers were not Christians, or if they were, were still skeptical of religion's place in government. The book seems little more than an excuse to regurgitate quotes from documents. While I agree with the sentiments of the author this book would've been much better as a short editorial in a magazine.
December 15, 2008
Very nicely explains, with extensive quotes that America was not founded as Christian country and no, many of the founding fathers were not even christians,or had very very relaxed beliefs about what Christianity is.
July 30, 2023
An excellent essay on how the United States was founded on Enlightenment principles (John Locke mostly) and specifically not founded on religious or Christian principles. Ms. Allen brings the receipts and includes a good section on sources and a solid index. Chapters on six of the Founding Fathers (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton) provide the background and history on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights specifically, and there are two chapters on the world in the 18th century (the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment) that produced these broad, strategic and skeptical thinkers. There are letters from Jefferson and Madison included in the appendix.
The Founding Fathers had no intention of establishing a “Christian” nation and worked hard, with good reasoning, to separate church and state from civil government. This book documents that and explains why.
The Founding Fathers had no intention of establishing a “Christian” nation and worked hard, with good reasoning, to separate church and state from civil government. This book documents that and explains why.
August 24, 2025
4.5 stars. Excellent study of 6 Founding Fathers' thoughts on religion: Washington, Franklin, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. And a final chapter recounting the history of Christianity from Henry VIII's break from Roman Catholicism to the early-19th century.
The author's conclusion - the framers of the constitution were more heavily influenced by John Locke and the Enlightenment rather than Christianity.
The 6 patriots studied were firm believers in the separation of church and state. 4 were deists. Adams was from a New England Congregationalist family but did not practice that religion as an adult. In his later life he was a Unitarian, the most liberal of Christian denominations. Hamilton used religion as a political tool to sway voters to his preferred candidates (John Adams in 1800).
The author's conclusion - the framers of the constitution were more heavily influenced by John Locke and the Enlightenment rather than Christianity.
The 6 patriots studied were firm believers in the separation of church and state. 4 were deists. Adams was from a New England Congregationalist family but did not practice that religion as an adult. In his later life he was a Unitarian, the most liberal of Christian denominations. Hamilton used religion as a political tool to sway voters to his preferred candidates (John Adams in 1800).
November 26, 2020
This book is an important history/civics lesson. B. Allen did a great job focusing solely on the views of the Founding Fathers in regards to religion and its role (non-role) in directing the government of a new nation.
2 recommendations:
-Read Chapter 8 (The World That Produced the Founders) first. It helps with understanding the Founding Fathers’ influences.
-Take many breaks between chapters because the massive amounts of quotes require a lot of concentration and can seem like gibberish after a while.
Favorite quote: “My own mind is my own church.” (Thomas Paine)
2 recommendations:
-Read Chapter 8 (The World That Produced the Founders) first. It helps with understanding the Founding Fathers’ influences.
-Take many breaks between chapters because the massive amounts of quotes require a lot of concentration and can seem like gibberish after a while.
Favorite quote: “My own mind is my own church.” (Thomas Paine)
August 1, 2019
Not very exciting to read, but very interesting information about the founding fathers, and the real history of the nation’s birth.
August 18, 2019
Recommended for a more precise understanding of our Founding Father's true beliefs and not our misguided idea of God's role in our early constitutional architecture and governmental development
September 6, 2022
Our not so christian founders were wise to keep religion where it belongs, Separate.
January 8, 2023
Very easily digestible with a lot of great insights into these founders' personal lives, their beliefs, and the world they were responding to. James Madison is a baller.
November 1, 2025
A short, competent intro to the subject featuring long excepts by and about the six Founders she discusses. A quick read. 3.5 stars.
April 1, 2015
I enjoyed this book a great deal. I was unaware of the advance of fundamentalism on our rights and the very frame of our Constitution.
This book discusses the religious nature of six of the founding fathers of the United States of America: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. All of it is done through quoting their private letters and papers, the laws they helped to enact, and ideas they tried to spread. Some of the Founding Fathers were quite devout, but a lot of them were Deists or Atheists. Washington didn't even profess a religion and a lot of his history was distorted by Mason Locke Weems, a charlatan of the highest order that made up the Cherry tree story and a great many other things.
The book is divided into eight chapters with an appendix and an index. Each chapter covers one Founding Father with chapter seven being about the follow-up of their deaths and chapter eight covering the history of the world that they lived in and that world's environment. For instance, a great issue was made on a lot of the pilgrims fleeing religious persecution, but most of the settlers were in it for the land and the money. The ones that did escape religious persecution foisted their own ideals on others and demonized dissenters and those of other sects. Rather silly if you ask me, considering the fact that they were all supposedly Christians.
In any case, I really enjoyed this book. I found it fascinating, and it introduced me to a couple of new Google searches. I was not aware that Maryland required belief in a God for public office up until 1961 of all times. I would read it again, but I have so many other books on my plate that it seems unlikely.
This book discusses the religious nature of six of the founding fathers of the United States of America: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. All of it is done through quoting their private letters and papers, the laws they helped to enact, and ideas they tried to spread. Some of the Founding Fathers were quite devout, but a lot of them were Deists or Atheists. Washington didn't even profess a religion and a lot of his history was distorted by Mason Locke Weems, a charlatan of the highest order that made up the Cherry tree story and a great many other things.
The book is divided into eight chapters with an appendix and an index. Each chapter covers one Founding Father with chapter seven being about the follow-up of their deaths and chapter eight covering the history of the world that they lived in and that world's environment. For instance, a great issue was made on a lot of the pilgrims fleeing religious persecution, but most of the settlers were in it for the land and the money. The ones that did escape religious persecution foisted their own ideals on others and demonized dissenters and those of other sects. Rather silly if you ask me, considering the fact that they were all supposedly Christians.
In any case, I really enjoyed this book. I found it fascinating, and it introduced me to a couple of new Google searches. I was not aware that Maryland required belief in a God for public office up until 1961 of all times. I would read it again, but I have so many other books on my plate that it seems unlikely.
October 23, 2011
I personally found nothing new or revealing in this short summary of the philosophical foundations of the United States or of the religious sentiments of the founding fathers. But given the efforts of a small but vocal movement to rewrite history to make America an exclusively “Christian” nation, it is a timely reminder of the vision people like Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison had for this country. Ms. Allen points out quite accurately and succinctly that these great men desired to create a nation that embodied the ideas and ideals of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Hume rather than those embodied in the Bible. They had studied the Bible of course and had commented on it extensively but this was largely to point out its flaws. This isn’t to say that they were anti-Christian in any way, as the author takes care to point out, but that they understood that religion in general, and Christianity in particular had no valid role in government. The founders opposed the idea of a national religion of any kind and intentionally separated Church and State in the formation of the U.S. Constitution.
Ms. Allen does come across a bit heavy when she points out that none of these men would be considered “Christian” by some modern standards but as she is trying to present a counterpoint to absurd claims that any of them shared the same beliefs about a personal savior or the divinity of Jesus as current American evangelicals, I can excuse this one point.
Ms. Allen does come across a bit heavy when she points out that none of these men would be considered “Christian” by some modern standards but as she is trying to present a counterpoint to absurd claims that any of them shared the same beliefs about a personal savior or the divinity of Jesus as current American evangelicals, I can excuse this one point.
July 26, 2022
Brooke Allen offers a passionate argument in favor of a secular origin of the US Constitution by a deep dive into the writings (both public and private) of six prominent men of the "founding generation". She makes a strong case for the thesis that many of the most influential leaders of the American Revolution were unconventional in their religious beliefs and that many of them leaned towards a Deist or Unitarian worldview. With the partial exception of the taciturn George Washington, she is able to build this argument through examination of their own words. Allen relies heavily on long excerpts from public addresses and private letters that show that Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and Washington too, thought long and hard about religion and rejected many key elements of Christianity, including the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Alexander Hamilton is a partial counter-example, as he, while skeptical much of his life, used religion as a political tool and seems to have become genuinely orthodox towards the end of his life. She does have a tendency to repeat some points, but this would, I suppose, aid in reading chapters independently of each other in conjunction with stand alone biographies.
December 11, 2010
Allen's premise is that some of the founding fathers (particularly Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton) were not necessarily Christian. And that the Constitution was not based on Christian principles but on Enlightenment philosophy. And that they definitely intended there to be a "wall of separation" between church and state. Allen tells us of these founding fathers' (as well as some of their religious colleagues) dislike of the religious wars and persecution in England and Europe. Her discussion of the various sects and the variations of state/religious mixtures in the colonies was very interesting.
It is interesting to see Jefferson include Judaism and Islam among religions that can be accommodated but no consideration of the Native American indigenous beliefs or of the vestiges of African religions that had survived the Middle Passage.
I think the understanding that many different sects were easier to handle than two or three dominant ones is something for us to pay attention to in the Middle East.
It is interesting to see Jefferson include Judaism and Islam among religions that can be accommodated but no consideration of the Native American indigenous beliefs or of the vestiges of African religions that had survived the Middle Passage.
I think the understanding that many different sects were easier to handle than two or three dominant ones is something for us to pay attention to in the Middle East.
November 26, 2016
This book easily refutes the current conservative line that our Founding Fathers were Christians and that the Constitution is based on Biblical principles.
Much of the Right's case is based on a website wherein the author lists the churches that our
Founding Fathers belonged to. While Ms. Allen freely admits that most of these men belonged to some church or another at some time in their lives, she demonstrates that MOST were not Christians in the contemporary sense of the word. How? By quoting their actual writings! Franklin, Madison and Jefferson in particular were prolific writers who didn't shy away from talking about religion.
As far as the Constitution goes, it is no accident that it doesn't say anything about God or Jesus. She also quotes Thomas Paine, Locke, Hume and Voltaire to give a sense of the zeitgeist.
A "must-read".
Much of the Right's case is based on a website wherein the author lists the churches that our
Founding Fathers belonged to. While Ms. Allen freely admits that most of these men belonged to some church or another at some time in their lives, she demonstrates that MOST were not Christians in the contemporary sense of the word. How? By quoting their actual writings! Franklin, Madison and Jefferson in particular were prolific writers who didn't shy away from talking about religion.
As far as the Constitution goes, it is no accident that it doesn't say anything about God or Jesus. She also quotes Thomas Paine, Locke, Hume and Voltaire to give a sense of the zeitgeist.
A "must-read".
December 27, 2010
A very interesting book and a must read for anyone who really cares about what the founding fathers thought about church and state. If one considers John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton founding fathers this book provides information from their papers and personal letters which should direct one in the search for original intent. The chapter on Hamilton is extremely enlightening and actually interpretive of current (21st century) happenings. The author also has a chapter dealing with "The World that Produced the Founding Fathers" which gives a context to how their thinking was affected by world events. I thoroughly enjoyed this work and recommend it to all.
July 8, 2011
Intelligent, quick and, apparently, well researched work on the background of six of the principle founding fathers on the narrow issue of their religious beliefs, development how religion (specifically 'Christianity) was kept out of the Constitution. Each chapter reads like a magazine article (with good reason as the author writes for magazines) and this makes it a quick read. But do not think that being a 'quick read' means an 'easy read'. To be 'slowly chewed and digested'.
Great counter-argument to those that think our Constitution, government, and founding fathers are 'for' Christians.
This one will stay on my shelf.
Great counter-argument to those that think our Constitution, government, and founding fathers are 'for' Christians.
This one will stay on my shelf.
January 10, 2013
MORAL MINORITY is a gratify broadside to the persistent myth that the United States was founded as — and needs to return to being — a faith-based nation. Using copious examples of their own writings, the author makes a watertight case for the fact that the Founders were at best Deists (or, in the case of Jefferson and Madison, outright atheists), and that any suggestion that they would have associated themselves with modern, evangelical religion, is absurd. The Founders were indeed inspired men, but theirs is an inspiration of individual liberty, civic faith, and natural truth; not revealed truth, and intellectual tyranny.
November 5, 2017
Very readable account of how religious freedom barely made it into the Constitution, and how American culture has always been hostile to the separation of Church and State.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews