What do you think?
Rate this book
Solemn Reverence: The Separation of Church and State in American Life
Solemn Reverence vividly portrays both the history of the separation of church and state and the various attempts to undermine that wall of separation. Despite the fact that the First Amendment and the separation of church and state has served the nation remarkably well, Balmer shows that previous episodes and ongoing efforts indicate its future is by no means assured.
An unprecedented experiment in church-state relations, the First Amendment to the US Constitution codified the principle that the government should play no role in favoring or supporting any religion, while allowing free exercise of all religions (including unbelief). More than two centuries later, the results from this experiment are overwhelming: The separation of church and state has shielded the government from religious factionalism, and the United States boasts a diverse and salubrious religious culture unmatched anywhere in the world. At various times throughout American history, however, and continuing to the present, special interests have sought to whittle away at the wall of separation between church and state—by seeking to declare that the United States is a “Christian nation,” by installing religious symbols in public spaces, by allowing tax-exempt entities to engage in partisan politics, or by diverting taxpayer funds for the support of religious schools.
An unprecedented experiment in church-state relations, the First Amendment to the US Constitution codified the principle that the government should play no role in favoring or supporting any religion, while allowing free exercise of all religions (including unbelief). More than two centuries later, the results from this experiment are overwhelming: The separation of church and state has shielded the government from religious factionalism, and the United States boasts a diverse and salubrious religious culture unmatched anywhere in the world. At various times throughout American history, however, and continuing to the present, special interests have sought to whittle away at the wall of separation between church and state—by seeking to declare that the United States is a “Christian nation,” by installing religious symbols in public spaces, by allowing tax-exempt entities to engage in partisan politics, or by diverting taxpayer funds for the support of religious schools.
112 pages, Paperback
Published February 2, 2021
4 people are currently reading
44 people want to read
About the author
Randall Balmer
43 books70 followersRandall Herbert Balmer, Ph.D. (Princeton University, 1985), is an ordained Episcopal Priest and historian of American religion, and holds the John Phillips Chair in Religion at Dartmouth College. He also has taught at Barnard College; Columbia, Rutgers, Princeton, Drew, Emory, Yale and Northwestern universities; and at Union Theological Seminary. Balmer was nominated for an Emmy Award for the PBS documentary "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory," based on his book of the same title.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 22, 2021
Freedom of Religion
Numerous books have been written about the First Amendment of the constitution, especially the separation of church and state component. This short book of 112 pages reads quickly, but the author’s review of few supreme court cases falls too short to convince the readers of his conclusion that it has served the nation remarkably well. This is by no means a thought-provoking book compared to other books available in the literature, but nonetheless some points need to be made with regards to freedom of religion. One of the contentious issue is who holds majority in the supreme court, the liberals, or conservatives? With the recent appointments of conservative judges, the court has tilted to a more conservative interpretation of the constitution.
The First Amendment codified the principle that the government should play no role in favoring or supporting any religion. The prohibition on an establishment of religion includes prayer in a government settings, or financial aid for religious individuals, or institutions to comment on religious questions, free expression of one’s religious beliefs, etc. There is a fine line between freedom of religion and fundamental human rights. Cases liker a baker refusing to bake cake for gay couple, or a group of high school students conducting prayers during lunch time were network news until recently. But the pundits teaching at law schools must discuss freedom of religion openly and honestly instead of taking a politically correct position. The demographics in the U.S have changed since the establishment of U.S. Constitution. For example, Muslims believe that Sharia Law is required by God and must be imposed worldwide. But if this religious belief has a strong political component, one needs to question the application of the principles of the first amendment. Apostasy in Islam is deemed "treasonous" against the Muslim community, and punishable by death. Blasphemy laws carry a potential death sentence for anyone who insults Islam or criticizes prophet Muhammad. Sharia Law has the potential to challenge the freedom of religion of the first amendment which must include other minority religions besides Abrahamic faiths.
Several countries in Asia and Europe have the equivalent of the freedom of religion component in their constitution and they have served very well for these countries. Recently a bill was passed in France that seeks to protect French values like gender equality and secularism to prevent radical religious ideas to inspire violence. This bill also increases oversight of Muslim mosque. French also strongly believes that Muslim women wearing hijab, niqab and burqa are not religious beliefs but a violation of women’s rights. Then how is that the United States consider this a religious issue and not a human right violation?
Numerous books have been written about the First Amendment of the constitution, especially the separation of church and state component. This short book of 112 pages reads quickly, but the author’s review of few supreme court cases falls too short to convince the readers of his conclusion that it has served the nation remarkably well. This is by no means a thought-provoking book compared to other books available in the literature, but nonetheless some points need to be made with regards to freedom of religion. One of the contentious issue is who holds majority in the supreme court, the liberals, or conservatives? With the recent appointments of conservative judges, the court has tilted to a more conservative interpretation of the constitution.
The First Amendment codified the principle that the government should play no role in favoring or supporting any religion. The prohibition on an establishment of religion includes prayer in a government settings, or financial aid for religious individuals, or institutions to comment on religious questions, free expression of one’s religious beliefs, etc. There is a fine line between freedom of religion and fundamental human rights. Cases liker a baker refusing to bake cake for gay couple, or a group of high school students conducting prayers during lunch time were network news until recently. But the pundits teaching at law schools must discuss freedom of religion openly and honestly instead of taking a politically correct position. The demographics in the U.S have changed since the establishment of U.S. Constitution. For example, Muslims believe that Sharia Law is required by God and must be imposed worldwide. But if this religious belief has a strong political component, one needs to question the application of the principles of the first amendment. Apostasy in Islam is deemed "treasonous" against the Muslim community, and punishable by death. Blasphemy laws carry a potential death sentence for anyone who insults Islam or criticizes prophet Muhammad. Sharia Law has the potential to challenge the freedom of religion of the first amendment which must include other minority religions besides Abrahamic faiths.
Several countries in Asia and Europe have the equivalent of the freedom of religion component in their constitution and they have served very well for these countries. Recently a bill was passed in France that seeks to protect French values like gender equality and secularism to prevent radical religious ideas to inspire violence. This bill also increases oversight of Muslim mosque. French also strongly believes that Muslim women wearing hijab, niqab and burqa are not religious beliefs but a violation of women’s rights. Then how is that the United States consider this a religious issue and not a human right violation?
July 11, 2025
“Ecclesiastical Establishments tend to great ignorance and Corruption…all of which facilitate the Execution of mischievous Projects.” (James Madison Madison to William Bradford, Jr., in 1774)
“The founders, recognizing the multifaith character of the emerging nation, were careful not to designate a denomination, a tradition, or even a religion as the established faith in the United States.”
“The language of Article 11 is pretty clear — ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion’ — so anyone arguing that the United States is a Christian nation would need to explain away both Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli as well as the Senate’s unanimous ratification of the treaty.”
“The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” (John Leland, American Baptist Minister)
“By complaining about the supposed limitations on their freedom of speech, these leaders of the Religious Right fail to acknowledge that tax exemption is a form of public subsidy. The vast majority of the nation’s religious organizations — churches, temples, mosques, synagogues — pay no taxes (other than Social Security taxes on wages), no income or corporate tax, and, in particular, no property taxes, although some organizations make voluntary contributions to their communities.”
“…Pastors, churches, or any other religious entity can make political endorsements from the pulpit or in any other forum. They need only to renounce their tax exemptions — their public subsidies — and they are free to be as partisan as they wish.”
“The Supreme Court did not outlaw Bible reading in public schools any more than it outlawed prayer in public schools. Students, on their own, can do both. The Supreme Court merely decided, in deference to the establishment clause of the First Amendment, that the state cannot mandate such activities.”
“Because Baptists were once a minority themselves, they eschewed majoritarianism…Their putative descendants, however, seek to impose their religious views on all Americans, thereby violating not only the First Amendment but the very principles that define their own religious heritage.”
“If Americans would fully embrace the First Amendment, if we are faithful to the founders’ intent, we should acknowledge that the default of Christianity has affected our perceptions of who is truly American.”
“As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her final opinion on church–state matters: ‘Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?’”
“The founders, recognizing the multifaith character of the emerging nation, were careful not to designate a denomination, a tradition, or even a religion as the established faith in the United States.”
“The language of Article 11 is pretty clear — ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion’ — so anyone arguing that the United States is a Christian nation would need to explain away both Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli as well as the Senate’s unanimous ratification of the treaty.”
“The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” (John Leland, American Baptist Minister)
“By complaining about the supposed limitations on their freedom of speech, these leaders of the Religious Right fail to acknowledge that tax exemption is a form of public subsidy. The vast majority of the nation’s religious organizations — churches, temples, mosques, synagogues — pay no taxes (other than Social Security taxes on wages), no income or corporate tax, and, in particular, no property taxes, although some organizations make voluntary contributions to their communities.”
“…Pastors, churches, or any other religious entity can make political endorsements from the pulpit or in any other forum. They need only to renounce their tax exemptions — their public subsidies — and they are free to be as partisan as they wish.”
“The Supreme Court did not outlaw Bible reading in public schools any more than it outlawed prayer in public schools. Students, on their own, can do both. The Supreme Court merely decided, in deference to the establishment clause of the First Amendment, that the state cannot mandate such activities.”
“Because Baptists were once a minority themselves, they eschewed majoritarianism…Their putative descendants, however, seek to impose their religious views on all Americans, thereby violating not only the First Amendment but the very principles that define their own religious heritage.”
“If Americans would fully embrace the First Amendment, if we are faithful to the founders’ intent, we should acknowledge that the default of Christianity has affected our perceptions of who is truly American.”
“As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her final opinion on church–state matters: ‘Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?’”
December 21, 2020
Solid If Brief History Marred By No True Scotsmen. This is a seemingly comprehensive - more comprehensive than any other I've ever read, and I've read many - yet brief (around 100 pages, including all non-narrative book material such as table of contents and bibliography) look at the issue. It even manages to include several historical facts of which I was hitherto unaware. Which is not overly easy to do, given that I've been speaking on this exact issue, from both sides at varying times, in depth off and on for over 20 years now. HOWEVER, particularly in its later chapters when it begins to get into more modern times - the last 40-50 years or so -, Balmer allows a tinge of "No True Scotsman" to invade his narrative. Even though I largely concur with these particular points, that the Baptists of the modern era - particularly the Southern Baptist Convention post "Conservative Resurgence" - have lost much of what it historically meant to be a Baptist (*even in the SBC itself!*), it taints what is otherwise a largely strictly fact based discussion of the history of the separation of Church and State in the land now known as the United States of America. Still, I don't find it quite significant enough to downgrade the overall rating a full 20% that the loss of one of five stars would denote (though if I were grading on a typical A-F scale, I would probably drop this into B+ territory over the issue). Very much recommended.
May 2, 2021
Solemn Reverence b Randall Balmer traces the history of the separation of church and state in the United States. He looks at the way that the “marketplace of religion” has allowed various sects to flourish and grow by not favoring one over the other nor allowing a government to infringe upon one. At the same time he is critical of the modern religious right and their attempts to codify into law various items on their agenda and strange that marketplace. He stats with Roger Williams and the founders and goes through the Blaine and Johnson amendments as well as the controversy of JFK and the issues with the modern religious right. It is a short book that is straight to the point. Overall I wish he went into more detail especially on the supreme court cases but for the parts he does cover it is done well.
June 16, 2022
There was little positive emotion in this short book. However, it was conveniently divided into fifteen chapters, which are easily read before bed.
February 18, 2023
Excellent primer on the history and thought of the First Amendment. Clear and concise writing throughout.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews