The Founding Myth

by Andrew L. Seidel, Susan Jacoby (Foreword), Dan Barker (Preface)

Was America founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Are the Ten Commandments the basis for American law? In the paperback edition of this critically acclaimed book, a constitutional attorney settles the debate about religion’s role in America’s founding.

In today’s contentious political climate, understanding religion’s role in American government is more important than ever. Christian nationalists assert that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and advocate an agenda based on this popular historical claim. But is this belief true?  The Founding Myth  answers the question once and for all. Andrew L. Seidel builds his case by comparing the Ten Commandments to the Constitution and contrasting biblical doctrine with America’s founding philosophy, showing that the Declaration of Independence contradicts the Bible. Thoroughly researched, this persuasively argued and fascinating book proves that America was  not  built on the Bible and that Christian nationalism  is  un-American. Includes a new epilogue reflecting on the role Christian nationalism played in fomenting the January 6, 2021, insurrection in DC and the warnings the nation missed. 
 

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

368 pages, Paperback

First published May 14, 2019

About the author

Andrew L. Seidel is a constitutional attorney, the Director of Strategic Response at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and an author. Andrew graduated cum laude from Tulane University ('04) with a B.S. in neuroscience and environmental science and magna cum laude from Tulane University Law School ('09), where he was awarded the Haber J. McCarthy Award for excellence in environmental law. He studied human rights and international law at the University of Amsterdam and traveled the world on Semester at Sea. Andrew completed his Master of Laws at Denver University Sturm College of Law with a perfect GPA ('11) and was awarded the Outstanding L.L.M. Award.

abridged from the Freedom From Religion website

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

“I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk – that’s not in the Constitution.” -Lauren Boebert, U.S. Representative (R-Colorado)

Whenever politicians and theologians (sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference) start rewriting history to fit their agendas, to prop up their mythologies, it becomes difficult to imagine a future in America where truth and reason are not outlawed commodities. Representative Lauren Boebert is not an anomaly, she isn’t a warped, uneducated aberration. She is but one of many.

“Modern events are part of a very deep story and [the] ‘Puritan connection’ helps explain a unique feature of modern US society: the influence of conservative evangelicals.” -Martyn Whittock, Trump and the Puritans

Whenever Christian Nationalists use Puritan Colonialism to boost their myth of America’s “Christian Foundation” it is important to note that Puritans imposed a death penalty for blasphemy, they imposed a death penalty for adultery, they imposed a death penalty for homosexuality, they imposed a death penalty for worshiping any god other than their god. This is the so-called “Christian heritage” that nationalists repeatedly point to; it is one of their go-to examples of [whitewashed] christian theocracy.

“The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed.” -Thomas Paine

Andrew Seidel correctly points out that the mainstays of Christianity are fear and obedience. That is why the original sin wasn’t murder or rape or even adultery or incest. The original sin, that for which all suffering and misery is deemed justified, was eating a piece of fruit. The real basis of faith is simply pretending to know something you don’t know. That is no basis for founding a just government.

“The idea that all people are created equal is not a religious idea, the idea that some people are special is. The entire Hebrew Bible is about the chosen people. The genocides they committed were justified because they were the chosen people. Religion promotes elitism, not equality.” -Andrew Seidel

The greater a person’s faith the more subordinate healthy skepticism becomes. This, Seidel proposes, is why church goers were so susceptible to the lies of Donald Trump. They were primed for someone, anyone, who would tell them what they wanted to hear—even when a simple fact check showed that it wasn’t true. For that reason religious thought can only be maintained within a closed loop system. It cannot withstand scrutiny.

Whenever someone tells you that the US government was built on biblical principles don’t be afraid to ask them which biblical principles are they talking about. Are they talking about the genocide? Are they talking about burning people at the stake? Are they talking about hanging witches? Are they talking about stoning rape victims because they didn’t yell for help loud enough?

Of course Christian Nationalists are up in arms. They feel the deceleration of their momentum, the ebbing of their majority, and the slow but steady erosion of their perceived superiority.

I for one am glad that Andrew Seidel—author, activist, constitutional attorney—is on our side. He and others like him are stalwarts in the fight to keep the political ideologies of Jefferson and Adams and Paine from being contorted and manipulated. I am hesitant to say that this book should be “required reading” for every American because that book list is already eight miles long but it really, really should at least be read by Rep Lauren Boebert and her like-minded constituents.

“Humans need saving, but they need to be saved from religion . . . the Christian Nationalists will not go gently into the obsolescence for which they are bound. They have grown accustomed to religious privilege. They are used to imposing their beliefs on unsuspecting schoolchildren, to politicians paying lip service to their deity, to their warped idea of religious freedom…” -A.S.
___________________________________

Today I just happened to drive by a Methodist Church with a marquee that read, “THE WORD OF THE DAY IS TOLERANCE.” How timely. I was reminded of something Andrew Seidel wrote…

“Tolerance and intolerance are not opposites.”

When you think about it, both tolerance and intolerance imply a position of authority. When I “tolerate” a person, an action, or an idea, the implication is that I have decided to grant it space—which in itself implies that I have the authority to do so. Intolerance means I have denied it space, I have denied its right to exist, or that it never had a right to exist in the first place. Tolerance is simply a political dog-whistle, a way of promoting Christian privilege without outwardly acknowledging Christian privilege.
___________________________________

“Religion is the millstone around the neck of American Exceptionalism because religious faith denies experience and observation to preserve a belief. It is for this reason that it is unlikely to contribute to progress, though will take credit for what science, rationality, experience, and observation have accomplished.” -A.S., The Founding Myth

[Daniel Riley · Rating 5 out of 5]

The publication of The Founding Myth could not have come at a better time. As I write this review, three states - Georgia, Ohio, and Alabama - have just passed laws effectively banning abortion. Two more states - Texas and Missouri - are poised to follow suit. Predictably, these bills have been passed along strictly religious lines in states where Christian Nationalists continue to hold enormous influence.

The Founding Myth exposes the oft-repeated lie that "America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles." The Founders knew what a nation formed on Christian principles would look like, because many of the colonies had experimented with that approach. In every such experiment, the descent into tyranny and wanton abuse of power was quick and devastating.

The Founders specifically rejected the idea of writing religion into our country's founding documents. The Constitution and Bill of Rights mention religion only three times: (1) to ban the use of religious tests for office, (2) to prohibit government from establishing religion, and (3) to guarantee to each citizen the right to worship (or not worship) as he or she chooses.

If the Founders had intended to forge the nation on Judeo-Christian principles, one would expect the Constitution to reflect the principles enunciated in the Ten Commandments. But as Andrew L. Seidel - author of The Founding Myth - points out, the Ten Commandments are directly contradicted by the Constitution. Whereas the Ten Commandments require belief in the Judeo-Christian deity, the Constitution explicitly prohibits compulsory worship. Whereas the Ten Commandments prohibit displays of art ("graven images") and blasphemy (using the Lord's name in vain), the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of thought. The list goes on.

Christian Nationalists often proclaim that we are "one nation under God" and that the Nation's motto - "in God we trust" - is proof of our "Christian heritage." But the Founding Myth reveals both of these phrases to be modern inventions that were inserted into the national dialogue well after the deaths of the Founders, by a handful of zealots exploiting national fears and apprehensions during times of great national strife (the Civil War and the "Red Scare").

The Founding Myth is prescient and important. It could not have come at a better time for our country. We are beset on all sides by constitutional threats from a president who owes his election to Christian Nationalists. Now more than ever, we must return to the secular origins that truly make our country great.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was America founded as a Christian nation? As we’ll see, the answer is so obvious and the argument so lopsided that it’s a wonder the counter-argument is ever made at all. But unfortunately, Christian nationalism, which should be a politically impotent fringe movement, is in fact a powerful force that not only got Donald Trump elected but that has, with surprising success, redefined what it means to be an American.

That something as specious as Christian nationalism has and continues to influence public policy is the reason The Founding Myth, written by constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel, is so important. Ten years in the making, this phenomenal and deftly argued book comes at the perfect time, laying to rest the claim that America is in any way founded on Christianity.

As Seidel notes, Christian nationalists argue either one of two positions that differ in subtle ways: 1) that the country was founded as a Christian nation, or 2) that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The first argument, that the country was founded as a Christian nation, has largely been abandoned because it is so easily and obviously refuted. As Seidel writes:

“The claim [that America was founded as a Christian nation] is demonstrably false as revealed by any number of documents from the time, including America’s godless Constitution, Madison’s Memorial, or the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated under President George Washington and signed by President John Adams with the unanimous consent of the US Senate in 1797, and which says that ‘the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’”

The language could not be clearer. Unlike the colonial constitutions that pre-dated the Revolution, which did include the terms “god,” “Jesus,” and “Christian,” the US Constitution does not mention god once. For the sake of comparison, here’s the text from the beginning of the Mayflower Compact:

“In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God…”

We find similar language in other colonial constitutions, which were not shy about expressing their reliance on the Christian faith. These pre-American British colonies were founded on the Christian faith, and it would therefore not have been surprising for the US Constitution to include similar language. In fact, many people explicitly stated their disapproval that god had been left out, which was surprising and without precedent. The US Constitution is the first example of a secular constitution, and the only logical explanation for the absence of god in a document that was endlessly debated was that the omission was intentional.

The Constitution doesn’t mention Jesus, Christianity, god, or the creator, and in fact only mentions religion twice, and only in a restrictive sense:

1. Article VI, Clause 3: “…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
2. The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Clearly, the Constitution is not establishing a theocracy; it’s establishing a secular government free from religion so that the people can be free to practice any religion or no religion at all. The founders knew that freedom from the dictates of an ancient tribal code is every bit as important as the freedom to practice any particular variety of it, so long as it does not harm others or supercede the “supreme law of the land,” the Constitution. This is so obvious to anyone who has read the Constitution (and compared it to contemporary constitutions of the time) that most Christian nationalists have retired the “founded as a Christian nation” argument entirely. But they have unfortunately not given up so easily.

The next line of argument offers the more subtle point that the founders were deeply religious and that Judeo-Christian principles influenced their political decisions, the founding documents, and our constitutional and political identity. This is also false, but in less obvious ways. What makes The Founding Myth unique is that, unlike similar books, the idea of Judeo-Christian influence is thoroughly critiqued and conclusively refuted.

The first part of the book discusses the “interesting but irrelevant” personal religious beliefs of the founders. It’s not necessary to spend much time on this, because as Seidel notes, the founders went out of their way to stress the irrelevance of personal religious beliefs in public discourse and the importance of “the wall of separation” between church and state. Although many of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, were Deists, not Christians, this point is tangential to the argument, as is the fact that Jefferson created his own “Jefferson Bible” by taking a razor and cutting out all references to miracles and supernatural events from the New Testament.

Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, famously said:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

The Declaration does contain the phrase “The Laws of nature and of Nature’s God,” but this is exactly what you would expect from a Deist; a Christian intent on establishing a Christian nation would not hesitate for a moment to include the words “Jesus” and “Christianity,” as we saw in the Mayflower Compact.

James Madison, the principal writer of the Constitution, said, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

Again, this is all very clear. The father of the Declaration and the father of the Constitution were both adamantly in favor of the separation of church and state because they knew their history too well, and understood the dangers of mixing religion with government and in justifying public policy on the basis of the subjective interpretation of “god’s word.” (Which is the ultimate form of relativism, as you can make the Bible say whatever you want.)

The Christian nationalist, pushed farther and farther to the margins, has one final argument to offer. Despite all of this, they claim, the country, while not founded as a Christian nation, and despite Jefferson’s and Madison’s insistence on the separation of church and state, was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This, as well, is ludicrous.

In parts two and three of the book, Seidel embarks on an extensive analysis comparing the principles of the Declaration and Constitution with those of the Bible. This, in my opinion, is the best part of the book, and will equip the reader with a plethora of new arguments to defend against the Christian nationalist myth. Seidel specifically analyzes, in the third part of the book, each of the Ten Commandments to show how they stand in direct opposition to our constitutional identity.

When Christian nationalists speak of Judeo-Christian principles, we often don’t know exactly what they’re talking about, but by their own admission, we know that the Ten Commandments top the list. So using this as a basic representation of Judeo-Christian principles is more than fair. As for the founding principles of the US, it’s obvious that the most important document in this regard would be the Constitution. It follows then that the best test of whether or not the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is to compare the Ten Commandments with the Constitution. And this is exactly what Seidel does.

What we find is that not only are the Ten Commandments not consistent with the Constitution, in most cases they represent ideals that are the exact opposite. We need only look to the very first commandment to see how.

The first commandment reads: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.”

Compare this to the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If you had been tasked at the founding with writing a law most opposed to the First Amendment, you might have come up with something similar to the first commandment. Whereas the Constitution protects free thought, speech, press, and religion, the first commandment demands the worship of a specific god within a specific religion. As Seidel wrote of the First Amendment:

“The first two clauses protect your right to think for yourself about life’s most important questions; the third, fourth, and fifth protect your right to speak and even publish those thoughts without fear of censure, and to gather with others to discuss them; the sixth protects your right to ask the government to listen to those ideas. Of the six clauses, the first two are arguably the most important, for without the ability to think freely about life’s questions, little would be added to the discourse protected by the other rights.”

Additionally, the Constitution grants power to the people (“We the people”), and Article VI states that “This Constitution....shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Conversely, the Ten Commandments grant ultimate power to god, which stands in direct opposition to Article VI. The Constitution also allows for amendments, while the Ten Commandments are literally set in stone.

Seidel goes on to show how every commandment stands in direct opposition to the principles of the Constitution. Without reviewing all of them, a few more examples are instructive. The second commandment states that “you shall not make yourself an idol….You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me…”

Contrast this with a quote by John Adams:

“We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer.”

And so you have guilt by association, found all throughout the Bible, versus the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial by jury, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments found in the Constitution. These two sets of guiding principles could not be more different.

And then you have the third commandment that prohibits using the lord’s name in vain, which explicitly violates the freedom of speech.

The commandment against murder, you might think, would seem to be more consistent with American law, but it turns out to be more complicated if you do a little research. To begin with, American law applies universally to all citizens. The biblical commandment to not kill someone applies only if that someone happens to be a believer. That’s the only logical explanation for why the Israelites went on a killing spree against infidels after being handed the Ten Commandments! The same goes for the biblical prohibitions against stealing and lying; they apply only to the tribe, and run counter to the universality of law and human rights found in the Constitution, which was influenced by the Enlightenment, not the Bible.

You might ask, what about the Golden Rule found in the New Testament? If the Ten Commandments are un-American, maybe we simply need to look to Christianity alone.

Not so. Christianity has the habit of stealing other people’s ideas and stamping them as its own, but don’t be fooled by its claim on the Golden Rule, which is found in several other religious and philosophical systems that pre-date Christianity. Seidel provides 13 examples in chapter 7 from ancient Greece, Egypt, China, and India, and from Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, and Greek philosophy. For example, Plato said, “We ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.”

Other ancient moral systems, for example Stoicism, also encouraged this same peaceful and tolerant disposition, without feeling the need to condemn non-believers to hell or require their adherents to abandon reason. Consider John 15:6, where Jesus says, “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” As Seidel explains, a careful reading of the New Testament, as with the Old Testament, reveals a set of tribal proclamations that really only apply to believers. A good example is when Jesus refused to help a woman’s sick child until she supplicated herself to him and professed her faith. And consider this quote from the prince of peace, found in Matthew 10:34-39:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Judeo-Christian principles are therefore built on blind obedience and submission to authority, with ultimate power granted to god, and reliance on a sacred text that can never be altered. The US, on the other hand, was founded on the principles of reasoned debate, with ultimate power granted to the people, based on a text that was meant to evolve and which includes the ability to propose amendments, as found in Article V.

Further, the order of the Ten Commandments betrays its ultimate goal—the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. As Seidel wrote:

“Judeo-Christianity’s attempt to keep the information loop closed is evident in the demands the biblical god makes in the Ten Commandments: no other gods before me, do not disrespect even my name, stop work for a full day to worship me, heed your parents because they will tell you to worship me, killing is acceptable if the victim is not someone who worships me, and finally, a decree to suppress certain thoughts.”

This tribal dictatorship is best described, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, as a “celestial North Korea.”

Ironically, the strongest Christian nationalist arguments for Judeo-Christian influence are the ones never made. The parts of our history we are most ashamed of—slavery, homophobia, and the subjugation of women—are found all throughout the Bible.

The tenth commandment tells us not to covet our neighbor’s slaves, thus implicitly condoning the practice; Leviticus 20:13 reads, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them”; and Corinthians 14:34-35 reads “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

Based on all of this, I think it’s safe to say that America was not only not founded as a Christian nation, and not influenced by Judeo-Christian principles, but that Judeo-Christian principles are entirely un-American. The arguments set forth in the book are indisputable, and what I’ve covered here in this review doesn’t even scratch the surface of what Seidel has provided.

So what do we do about the inescapable conclusion that Judeo-Christian principles are un-American? We should start by recognizing that the phrases “In God We Trust,” “One nation under God,” and “God Bless America” are also un-American (and were incorporated more than 100 years after the founding). And if this is so, then we should not just sit quietly by and passively accept this “experiment on our liberties,” as James Madison would call it. It is on every one of us to ensure that the wall of separation between church and state is not breached. As Seidel wrote:

“As the myths debunked in this book are professed with more desperation, we must be prepared to refute them factually and vocally. This book provides the first half of that recipe. You are responsible for the rest. Outspoken resistance is, as Madison might say, the ‘first duty of citizens.’”

----

To report a State/Church violation, contact the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

----

Further Reading

For more information on the secular foundation and history of the United States, check out Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby. Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything shows how religious thinking distorts our knowledge of history, morality, and science, and blinds us to our common humanity. The God Argument: The Case against Religion and for Humanism by A.C. Grayling exposes the weaknesses in the arguments for religion and religious belief and argues for an alternative system of humanism. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker examines the history of violence and why it has declined, including the religious causes of violence and the secular and rational forces of peace. Finally, in A Manual for Creating Atheists, Peter Boghossian shows how to respectfully and reasonably talk people out of their faith.

[Pseudonymous d'Elder · Rating 3 out of 5]

__________________________
A state must have a religion and that religion must be under the control of the government —Napoleon Bonaparte.

The Founding Myth is a study of the constitutionally protected separation of church and state in the U.S. and how Christian Nationalism hopes to establish Christianity as the state religion.

In the United States, Christian Nationalism is often associated with the belief that the country was founded on Christian principles and Christianity should determine the makeup of our laws and government. These beliefs can manifest in efforts to promote Christian symbols in government spaces, enact legislation based on Christian teachings, restrict non-Christian influences, and allow religious institutions to wield power in the government. Christian nationalism would erode religious pluralism and democracy by marginalizing non-Christian citizens or of Christians who were not part of the establishment and imposing specific religious beliefs and restrictions on citizens.

The single most accurate predictor of whether a person voted Republican in the 2016 election was not religion, wealth, education, or even political party; it was believing the government of the United States is and should be a Christian entity.

__________________________
For the past few years, I have been hearing evangelical preachers proclaim that the U.S. government should be based on Christianity because the Founding Fathers were Christians.

This generalization—that the founders were Christians-- is not based on fact. Many of the founding fathers were Deists. Deism was a belief system that emphasized reason and natural law over religious dogma.In Deism, God is seen as the Creator of the universe but one that does not actively intervene in human affairs or the natural world. Deists believe that God set the universe in motion, established natural laws, and then stepped back, allowing everything to function according to reason and logic. Well known founders who were Deist include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, and Ethan Allen.

Also, the founders were very clear that they believed that there could be no freedom of religion without a government that is free from religion, that separation of church and state was necessary.

James Madison: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

George Washington "I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.

Thomas Jefferson: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

__________________________
Christian Nationalists believe the U.S. government should reflect Christian tenets because the Pilgrims came to America to establish religious freedom.

OK, the Pilgrims/Puritans did come to the New World for religious freedom—for Puritans. They intended to create a theocracy based on Puritan beliefs and banning all other religious beliefs. The Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony actually executed Quakers for their religious beliefs in the late 1650s and early 1660s. The Puritans viewed Quaker beliefs as a direct challenge to their religious authority.

Benjamin Franklin: "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

__________________________
The states of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma have fairly recently passed laws requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in all classrooms and/or courtrooms under the calculated misinterpretation that the Ten Commandments were the father of all laws and therefore the postings were just historical (not religious) monuments. (Apparently, no one had ever thought of the idea that murder and thievery were bad things before Moses climbed Mt. Siani.)

__________________________
Many Christian Nationalists believe that God chooses the leaders of nations.

“They say about our president, ‘Well, he is not presidential.’ Thank goodness…he is not a polished politician. In other words, he is authentically—whether people like it or not—has been raised up by God. Because God says that He raises up and places all people in places of authority. It is God who raises up a king.

This statement was made by Paula White, a televangelist and spiritual adviser to President Trump. She expressed this view on The Jim Bakker Show, a right-wing talk show, where she defended Trump by comparing his rise to biblical figures and emphasizing that God places leaders in positions of authority. She also stated that resisting Mr. Trump was "fighting against the hand of God."

Makes we wonder though. Since Biden became President in 2021, wouldn’t that prove that Biden was chosen to be the President by God himself, and the evangelicals should have no complaints about his rise to the office or how he got elected? Just curious.

__________________________
🌟🌟🌟 Stars. I have researched all of the quotes from the founding fathers I included in this review and found them to be accurate. I believe the book is well researched and that Mr. Seidel qualifications (Constitutional Lawyer) are appropriate for this analysis. However, Seidel’s atheist panties are showing under his kilt. He occasionally can be found criticizing religion itself and not just the need for separation of church and state. Now, when I was a boy, I had so many Sunday School medals pinned to the chest of my Sunday-go-to-meeting suit jacket that it would have made a Russian general envious. These days, however, I am not a religious person —except when the Powerball Lottery pot reaches 500,000,000 dollars or more. It concerns me, however, that Seidel’s personal spiritual beliefs probably have colored his analyses. As a result, the effectiveness of his arguments is compromised. He should have crossed his legs.

The road to hell is paved with bad elections.

[Book Shark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American by Andrew Seidel

“The Founding Myth” exposes the myth that America was founded on Christian principles and it is an effective assault on the Christian nationalist identity. Constitutional and civic rights attorney at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Andrew Seidel, takes the reader on a hard-hitting tour de force as he meticulously dismantles the concept of a Christian nation. This important 354-page book includes twenty-six chapters broken out by the following four parts: I. The Founders, Independence, and the Colonies, II. United States v. The Bible, III. The Ten Commandments v. The Constitution, and IV. American Verbiage.

Positives:
1. A well-researched, well-organized written book.
2. The fascinating topic of debunking the Christian nation myth. “The purpose of this book is simple, if lofty: to utterly destroy the myths that underlie this un-American political ideology.”
3. Reference quality material, a very useful debate tool.
4. Does a wonderful job of keeping the material accessible and defining key terms and concepts. ““Judeo-” is a sop, a fig leaf, tossed about to avoid controversy and complaint. It is simply a morsel of inclusion offered to soften the edge of an exclusionary, Christian movement.”
5. The recurring theme of how religion is divisive. “History had proven to the framers of the US Constitution that religion is divisive. They separated religion from government to avoid the mistakes of past regimes.”
6. Exposes Project Blitz. “Project Blitz encapsulates the problem Christian nationalism poses. First, it seeks to alter our history, values, and national identity. Then it codifies Christian privilege in the law, favoring Christians above others. Finally, it legally disfavors the nonreligious, non-Christians, and minorities such as the LGBTQ community, by, for instance, permitting discrimination against them in places of public accommodation or in employment.”
7. Discusses the founders’ intention. “Two facts illustrate the founders’ intentions to build this wall. First, our Constitution is deliberately godless. There are no references to gods, goddesses, or divine intervention. The omission was not an oversight. Supernatural power was rejected in favor of the natural power contained in the first three words: “We the People.””
8. Discusses the source of morality. “Religion gets its morality from us, not the other way around.”
9. Provocative statements throughout. “In other words, what most religions label absolute morality is simply their personal morality given divine sanction.”
10. A debunk fest. “The Golden Rule is not a Judeo-Christian principle. It is a universal human principle.”
11. Compelling arguments. “The founding documents of the United States revere and protect freedom above all else. The bible worships and demands the opposite: obedience, submission, and servility.” “Blind obedience to and fear of an omnipotent being is tyranny, not freedom. At its core, Judeo-Christianity’s insistence on obedience and fear conflicts with America’s essential value.”
12. Christianity in conflict with our founding principles. “The entire Christian religion is based on a singular claim that violates the principle of personal responsibility so critical to our systems: that Jesus died for your sins.”
13. Discusses the foundation of our godless Constitution. “Our Constitution is the product of human thought and perseverance, not faith.” “Reason and experiment dispel error; faith propagates it.”
14. Dissects the Ten Commandments and how they conflict with the Constitution. Take the third commandment. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. “Blasphemy laws and religious restrictions on speech are un-American. This commandment stands opposed to all that makes our country great.”
15. Biblical passages that are incompatible with the Constitution or common sense. “Jesus himself lays down the most vile and controlling sexual law by making it impossible to obey the adultery commandment: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.””
16. Discusses how capitalism is prohibited by the tenth commandment. “The particular thought the tenth commandment prohibits—covetousness—is itself a problem for the Christian nationalist. Even Americans with no historical or legal training should recognize that coveting is the basis of American capitalism and our consumer society. Both would fail without the desire to get what we don’t have. Coveting created America.”
17. The distinction between a moral code and a religious one. “The alleged moral and ethical superiority of the Ten Commandments is important to the Christian Nation myth and, like the myth, is inaccurate. The Ten Commandments are not a moral code; they are a religious code. That distinction, often lost, is crucial. A moral code is a set of principles that help us analyze and reach moral solutions in the innumerable dilemmas life presents. A religious code is a set of rules based on divine authority—its only “morality” is to obey, to follow.”
18. Great quotes. ““It is much easier to alarm people than to inform them.” — William R. Davie, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, in a letter to James Iredell, during the run-up to North Carolina’s ratifying convention, 1788”
19. The evil of slavery. “Slavery is sanctified and permitted in the bible. Jesus even discusses the proper force with which to beat one’s slaves in Luke 12:45–49, a passage the Southern states often used to justify slavery.”
20. Discusses the divisive motto. “The presidential tradition of troubling deaf heaven with bootless cries by closing presidential remarks with the phrase “God bless America” dates to Nixon and is rooted in one of the worst scandals to mar the presidency. Nixon used religion to distract Americans from Watergate.”
21. Links to footnotes.

Negatives:
1. No visual supplementary material.
2. No formal bibliography.
3. Having to wait so long for such an excellent book.

In summary, this is an important and reference quality book. We needed this book and Andrew Seidel provides a truly patriotic resource to fight back Christian nationalists that will stop at nothing to turn our country into a theocracy. A wonderful resource, I can’t tout this book enough. Get it, a high recommendation!

Further recommendations: “Why the Religious Right Is Wrong about Separation of Church and State” by Robert Boston, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Atheists Can’t Be Republicans” by Cj Werleman, “The Dark Side of Christian History” by Helen Ellerbe, “Atheism for Dummies” by Dale McGowan, “Birth Control, Insurance Coverage, & the Religious Right” by A.F. Alexander, “50 popular beliefs that people think are true” by Guy P. Harrison, “Godless” by Dan Barker, “Freethinkers” by Susan Jacoby, “Republican Gomorrah” by Max Blumenthal, “American Fascists” by Chris Hedges, “Doubt” by Jennifer Michael Hecht, “Society Without God” by Phil Zuckerman, and “Why are you Atheists so Angry?” by Greta Christina.

[Xavier Patiño · Rating 5 out of 5]

The 2016 elections thrusted me into the foul world of politics. It left me confused and angry. What happened? Why did people vote for his man? Everyday seemed to reveal a new controversy. How could a morally corrupt person solidify support from evangelicals and Christians? Article after article revealed their thinking – that America was a Christian nation, and that Trump was chosen by god. I found the hypocrisy overwhelming and thought it important to investigate the matter – was the United States founded on Judeo-Christian ideals?

Andrew Seidel is a constitutional attorney and director for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Any time a state or federal law violates the 1st amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise”) they sue to ensure that the separation of church and state is not breached.

Seidel argues masterfully that most of the founders were likely not Christian; and those that were didn't let that affect their decisions. Founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are written to ensure a secular government. The founders were very meticulous with their wording. They could’ve used phrases such as “our Lord Jesus Christ” or “our Savior” if indeed they wanted to build a nation established on Christianity but alas, they did not. Private correspondence from men like Washington and Jefferson provide evidence that they believed the marriage of government and religion was injurious to the construction of the new country. They understood the dangers of a theocratic government. In fact, they were fighting to break the shackles from the Crown, a government based on theocracy.

Seidel quotes heavily from the bible and he shows how ridiculous and hypocritical fundamentalism is. The ten commandments (and there are multiple commandments to be found throughout the Old Testament, just to add to the confusion) are shown to be completely antithetical to the arguments in the founding documents. The colonists fought for freedom and liberty from tyranny; the commandments demand unwavering obedience to god. It is absurd to think the commandments have any validity in the founding of the U.S.

I leave two quotes from the book that I found both powerful and informative:

“To meet the responsibilities of democracy, individuals must have access to a broad spectrum of opinions, ideas, and information. For the government to censor public debate because it thinks a particular speaker unwise or ill-informed would usurp the authority of citizens to make their own judgements about such matters and thus undermine the very essence of self-government… The first amendment promotes the emergence of character traits that are essential to a well-functioning democracy, including tolerance, skepticism, personal responsibility, curiosity, distrust of authority, and independence of the mind.” – Geoffrey Stone, constitutional scholar, page 178, my edition

“Religion must maintain a closed information system to perpetuate itself. Religious dogma cannot withstand the facts, scrutiny, or doubt that comes with exploration, discovery, and expanded horizons. Religion is often too inflexible to incorporate new information, like human evolution or a heliocentric solar system, so it demands that followers shut out reality. Judeo-Christianity’s attempt to keep the information loop closed is evident in the demands the biblical god makes in the ten commandments: no other gods before me, do not disrespect even my name, stop work for a full day to worship me, heed your parents because they will tell you to worship me, and finally, a decree to suppress certain thoughts. The very concept of the Judeo-Christian god encapsulates thoughtcrime.” – Page 236, my edition

Indeed, stating the idea that the United States was founded on Christianity is un-American.

[Matthew Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to say that I agree with a majority of this book. This is not now, now has it ever been, a "Christian nation." However, the gratuitous attacks on Christianity as a whole seemed completely unnecessary to the book's central argument, and also appeared to be mean-spirited attempts at evangelizing atheism. Additionally, Seidel appears to believe that fundamentalism evangelicals are representative of all Christian beliefs. This is extremely sloppy and the straight up dismissiveness of even the concept of progressive Christianity is downright insulting. These issues bumped an otherwise five star book down to a three star rating. In the end, the central argument is well researched and well argued, but be aware that the author goes off the rails in an unnecessary attempt to score "points" against Christian faith.

[Oliver Hunt · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first third of the book is informative and interesting, showing how the founding fathers weren’t building a specifically Christian nation, but were more likely theists, deists, atheists, and agnostics themselves. There’s lot of good information, thorough research, and compelling arguments made to prove that point, and I think it’s well written. 5 stars.

Then.... The rest of the book is an attempt to bash Christianity, and then try to loosely tie it to how un-Christian the Constitution and Bill of Rights are. “Jesus mentions hell... well that doesn’t sound very representative of a law against cruel and unusual punishment does it? Therefor, not Christian.” Or how about, “Original sin? And Grace? Well that doesn’t sound like the justice system we established does it? Therefore, not Christian.”

I agree with the argument presented that the founders were not likely Christian or specifically looking to build a Christian nation. But after chapter 6, the rest of the book presents a mockery of faith and of “the bible” (not capitalized). It attempts ridiculous connections of nonsense on par with “God destroyed the canaanites? Wow that doesn’t sound like what our founders wanted at all!” or “God commanded Abraham to offer his son as sacrifice. No way Thomas Jefferson would have done the same!” Or “thou shall not covet is definitely not something in our judicial code”, as if those prove his point.

The first 3rd of the book proves his point.

The rest is just trying to pull commands from the Bible, show that we don’t have those pieces in our law, and thus, QED, not Christian. It seems unnecessarily pedantic to use the fact that we don’t have a law against boiling a goat in its mother’s milk as proof that we weren’t founded as Judeo-Christian country.

[Paige · Rating 2 out of 5]

Seidel contends America was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but he misses the full picture. As an atheist who so fervently believes this to be true, Seidel often speaks in absolutes and omits counterarguments which makes his thesis less persuasive. He further fails to clearly define Judeo-Christian principles, so the reader is left to create their own version. Broadly, being a person raised Catholic who later turned atheist, my interpretation is they are a collection of moral and religious principles largely stemming from the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) and Western civilization that champion specific qualities of right and wrong, faith, and obedience such as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. On a much less positive note-and what people often don’t like to talk about-is the principles also include the moral backwardness of the Bible, which was largely patriarchal, sexist, elitist, authoritarian, homophobic, xenophobic, genocidal, and murderous. Slavery was rampant and accepted, women were viewed as property and raped at will, and a person could be stoned to death for minor infractions.

With that in mind, Seidel is correct that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits an establishment of religion and laws restricting the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Seidel is also correct that the founders he mentions-mainly Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington-were influenced and applied the political ideas of Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Locke to the Constitution. This is where the separation of church and state, government by the people, and rights of life and liberty came from.

That said, this does not mean Judeo-Christian principles did not influence America’s founding. Seidel thinks that because there are no references to god in the Constitution, religious influence is absent. This is shortsighted. The founders may have applied Enlightenment principles to the Constitution, but these were only directed to elite white men. “We the People” did not mean everyone in America in 1789. Quite to the contrary, much like the Bible, African-Americans were used as a burgeoning business for white slave-owners, women were viewed as property and had no rights, and Native Americans, despite living in America first, were murdered in xenophobic and discriminatory fashion. All this is assumed in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. African Americans were not released from slavery until 1865 and could not vote until 1870, women did not get the right to vote until 1920, and Native Americans have never received true justice.

Further, Seidel omits any discussion of the Tenth Amendment, which leaves all power not espoused in the Constitution and federal level, directly to the states. The states passed all kinds of religiously influenced laws such as those prohibiting homosexuality and instituting Sunday sales laws. While many colonists had fled religious persecution in England, they still were quite religious and this had influence on their laws. White men from the elite class like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were likely the minority in their deist viewpoints.

Seidel believes that “[o]ur country’s government and laws are distinct from its society and culture. It is the difference between our constitutional (or legal) identity and our popular (or social, or cultural) identity.” I do not believe this to be true. Ultimately, while the Constitution is one of the most famous documents regarding the creation of America, its literal text is only one part of America’s founding. The political and moral viewpoints of its founders, and the individuals living in states in the late 1770s, influenced how federal and state laws were drafted and applied, along with what they omitted. All this was part of America’s founding.

[Arianne X · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christianity is Blatantly Un-American and Patently Inhuman

America was settled as a Christian theocracy. The United States was established as a secular republic. The real secret to Christian Nationalism is that it is not a debate over how the country was founded, it is a fight about what the country is now and what it will be in the future; a mendacious, violent, lawless, fascist Christian future if the Christians win. But the Christian Nationalist collation should still step forward and take credit for its great contribution to American values. “Judeo-Christianity” has provided us with the rationalizations for legal slavery, institutionalized sexism, imposed racism, capital punishment (an updated form of human sacrifice), and sexual repression. Religion does not supply molarity, it replaces morality. Christianity is viscerally repugnant. There are people who identify as Christians who are also moral, kind, accepting, and understanding but these elevated standards of personal behavior are contrary to true Christian dogma.

The Ten Commandments are Bluntly Unconstitutional

Religion is the worst form of tyranny, perhaps only a Hobbesian state of nature in anarchy is worse. The last thing anyone would have in a Christian nation is religious freedom. Christianity is a claim on ultimate truth, and as such cannot coexist with human freedom. Even the most minor differences of opinion are magnified into murder due to the sectoral claims to ultimate truth. The Ten Commandments (four versions) and the Bible from which they are drawn are anti-American and un-American. They are in contradiction to freedom of religion and freedom of speech but also create thought crimes and speech crimes. How could the U.S. Constitution be based on ancient laws and rules that are prima facia unconstitutional? Prohibitions on murdered, theft, and fraud are not original or unique to Judaism or Christianity. Where ‘Judeo-Christian’ principles are unique, they are opposed to American principles. Biblical law is as far from American law as possible and has led to the passing of laws found to be unconstitutional. Biblical law is about vengeance, American law is about justice. Biblical law derives from Iron Age mythology whereas American law derives from Enlightenment reason and social contract theory. That is, rights are agreed upon by citizens and enforced by society, they are not granted by God or government. Many of the rights we enjoy today (marriage equality, end of slavery, right to vote, female suffrage) are contrary to the ‘will of God’. The concept of self-government itself is anti-Biblical and un-Christian. No devout Christian would have rebelled in the first place, religion requires blind obeisance, not independent thinking. If the founders were Christian, they would have never founded a new nation because it was very un-Christian to rebel against one’s ‘lawful’, anointed, and ordained king. The Bible tells believers to “keep the king’s command.” The concept of a representative government is nowhere in the Bible. It was the Anglican clergy and laity that were overwhelmingly Loyalist. The idea that people are created equal is not a religious idea. The entire Bible is predicated upon the notion of a chosen people, religion is based on elitism, not liberty or equality. In any case, the American founding represented political progress while Christianity continues to resist progress. Given that Biblical commands stand in direct contradiction to American civil law, how can it be said that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation without a healthy dose of willful ignorance? The founding generation invoked the laws of nature, not supernatural law.

Judeo-Christian? The U.S. might as well be Orphic-Zoroastrian

If the U.S. is “Judeo-Christian” it might as well be thought of as “Orphic-Zoroastrian”, or even better, as based on one of the many dying and rising savior god cults from the ancient near east – Christianity being the latest in a long line of such cults. Since the main emphasis of “Judeo-Christian” is on the “Christian” suffix, the Christian Nationalists might as well claim that U.S. was founded upon a human sacrifice and blood magic, same as Christianity. As such, the absurd claim reduces to that of the U.S. being founded upon the principles of ancient near eastern barbaric cults and religions. Judaism has many Zoroastrian antecedents. Christianity, which started as a Jewish heresy, is dragging America down the dark hole of ignorance and myth. We must remember the ignorant and vulgar quote attributed to the 5th Century Egyptian monk, Shenoute, “there is no crime for those who have Christ.” These were the watch words of the Christian Nationalists in action on 01/06/2021. Ironically, the oxymoronic characterization of “Judeo-Christian” is a made in America myth. “Judeo-Christian” is really a piece of left-over Cold War rhetoric from a time when religion was drafted into the fight against the Godless communist atheists, oh my. Atheism was about the only thing the communists got right. At least as atheists they did not have a religious incentive to bring about a righteous Armageddon to gain their eternal reward. Ha, perhaps the Godless communists saved America from its own religious foolishness. But I digress here. In any case, “Judeo-Christian” is now conveniently projected backwards to the ‘founding’ generation of the United States at a time when no such concept existed. The Christian’s of the revolutionary period actually condemned the notion of natural law and nature’s God as penned in the Declaration of Independence as heretical and atheistic. Odd now that Christians claim that the generic deistic phrases found in The Declaration were an expression of Christian authority. The deistic references found in The Declaration of Independence alone (not the Constitution) were poetic examples of strategic piety in grand rhetorical style. They were a form of religious political theater for window dressing needed in the eighteenth century. A rhetorical reference to providence does not imply underlying religiosity. None of this denies the cultural impact of Christianity in America, only that the U.S. was not founded upon Christianity. The greatest cultural impact of “Judeo-Christianity” on America was in providing scriptural justification for slavery. In this sense, maybe the U.S does own something to the “Judeo-Christian” tradition. Well, at least the Constituent was amended, but slavery remains infallible world of God. Is there any means for amending the Bible?

The Irony of separating Religion from the State

This is my own theory: By separating religion from government, freedom of religion was created. In the ‘new world’ the world was made safe for religion, it thus flourished in this new environment. In America, religion was seen as the path to morality and freedom. In Europe, when religion was tied to the state, it was seen as part of tyranny, oppression and ignorance and thus easier to overthrow with the related forces of oppression in society, tyranny in government and repression in culture. In Europe, religion was a tool of control and easy to oppose. In America, with religion being separate, it was seen as the force opposing government oppression, real or imagined. Only a government free from religion can guarantee the freedom of religion but it is this very freedom that enables religion to intrude upon government, gain control and impose its doctrine. This ironically opens a path for religion, the most repressive of all forces, to insidiously enter government in the name of preserving liberty. “There is nothing more consequential than religion when tied to the state, nothing is more inconsequential than religion in its natural state” (from Pretend Poetry, page 98). Let’s not forget, Christian Nationalism is about racism and bigotry and thus stands on strong Biblical grounds and a firm Judeo-Christian foundation.

The author recognizes this same irony, but as the result of free market forces in America propelling religion in the same manner as any other product in the marketplace as opposed to there being no marketplace for religion in Europe when it was monopolized by the state. The operation of market forces produces innovation and campaigns to sell religion for profit in the U.S. creating enthusiasms for religion whereas religion became stale and stayed in Europe where no such market forces were at work to promote religion through competition with modern marketing to earn a profit and further fight secular government regulations as unchristian. With the support of Christianity for capitalism, the ‘Prosperity Gospel’ is unsurprising outcomes of American religious innovations. This renders American piety, vague but fervent as well as shallow and ignorant.

My Point of Contention:

Page 31. The author argues that even if the founders were pious Christians, this would have no bearing on the founding of the country. His reasoning is: “One’s personal theistic beliefs do not “own” the other ideas generated by one’s mind.” He states that the founder’s personal religious beliefs do not matter. Can this be correct? It is the essential nature of theistic beliefs is to inform or “own” the other ideas generated by one’s mind. Believers cannot separate their religious views from their views on other issues. This just is what it means to have a religious worldview. How can it be claimed that a convinced religious believer will not allow that their religious faith to inform their legal, political or philosophical opinions? What does it mean to have a religious belief if it does not inform one’s opinions and guide one’s actions in other areas? The entire point of such a belief system is to provide the believer with guidance on the most vexing moral and difficult ethical issues, precisely the type of issues that a founder would confront, unless it is just a hobby religion. A religious worldview as such is not just a feature of a person’s decision-making process, it is a feature of the decision maker. My contention is that if the founders had such theistic beliefs, it would have mattered a great deal. The author’s argument askes us to believe that a person could set aside their entire worldview when thinking about founding a new nation. It is much better to argue that the non-Christian secular founding of the United States proves that the founders did not have such theistic beliefs, Christian or otherwise. We know as a matter of historical fact that the founders never cited the Bible during the writing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The constitution is deliberately Godless in every respect.

Missing Footnotes

Am I missing something as a reader? Ok, don’t answer that, but many of the numbered footnotes in the text are not in the notes section of the book. There are too many examples to site, but here is one as an example. Chapter 22, on page 244 of the text are footnotes 9, 10 and 11. On page 339, the notes for chapter 22, the numbered notes skip from 8 to 12.

[Dennis McCrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book to better understand the growing strain of Christian Nationalism and the religious thinking that supports it. I find signs of it in most fundamentalists and Evangelicals and even in those of my faith, Latter-day Saints. It is disheartening to observe how misguided, even under/ill-informed many are. The sense of religious revival that one encounters in the practitioner’s sphere only discredits any viability their arguments may hold. This book was to help me know to some sense what is going on. It only bolstered the knowledge I’ve gained from other similar recent readings, to include ‘Jesus and John Wayne’ by Dr. Kristin Kobes Du Mez and ‘The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism’ by Katherine Stewart. In retrospect, Edward Bernays’ 1928 book ‘Propaganda’ and the idea of propaganda in general plays a prominent role in this book.

Here is a quote by the author in the book that deeply affected me: “By seeking to graft his religion onto the structure of the American government, the Christian Nationalist is simply showing his religion to be a bad one. Not only bad, but also, according to Thomas Jefferson, erroneous, for “it is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.””

The author continues: “Christian Nationalists’ attempt to co-opt the power and prestige of the American Enlightenment (as demonstrated in The Constitution through the experiment of separation of Church and State) for their own ends says far more about their insecurity and the genuine blindness of their faith than it does about America’s founding.”

And then there is then presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, who in 1960 said this:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute - where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote - where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference - and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish - where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source - where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials - and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.” (JFK, Remarks to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12 1960)

[Scott Holstad · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important, well written book, logical and factually accurate. My only problem is it's so ... "lawyer-speak," I mean uber dry! I would have given another star if Seidel had simply handed it over to a good, veteran co-author who could have injected a little prose, a little life into it. I mean I've published academic papers and white papers, and your average reader would have said about those works what I just wrote about this book. But the difference is those papers were not intended for general readers but for niche target audiences. That's what this book feels like, but I was under the assumption that this book is intended for wide, general audiences, and I just don't think it'll appeal to your average reader, even for some more specific target audience. The only readers I see this book appealing to are Constitutional lawyers and scholars, a few historians, a number of atheists (preaching to the choir) and possibly a few intellectually curious Christians... But great topic, superb research and arguments to support his thesis. I do hope more people than I anticipate will read it.

[Gendou · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a highly engaging read! It's a difficult subject, but the argumentation is diamond clear and diamond strong.

It's also a very, very important book. Especially at this challenging time in US history. Christian nationalism is an important lens through which to see the recent capitol riot, for example. Everyone who cares about US politics should read this book so they can successfully argue against this dangerous mythological historical narrative.

In summary, the founding fathers in the founding documents put up explicit separation between government and religion. Christian morals didn't inspire our form of government. On the contrary, the values evident in our government directly contradict biblical values. The term "Judeo-Christian" is meaningless and gives a false sense of inclusion.

[Kem White · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seidel succeeds with this book. He thoroughly and convincingly explains why Christian Nationalism is un-American. You come away from this book understanding why revisionist Christianist history is so pernicious to the founding principles of this country, eager to fight religion's incursions into our secular lives and government, and then...

Nothing. No suggestions for how or where to proceed. No ideas for the next steps we're to take. Just a concluding paragraph where Seidel tells you that it was only his intent to lead you to the water. Practice "outspoken resistance" is the only guidance we're given. I would have liked a chapter with some specifics. Ideas for what I can do to counter Franklin Graham, David Barton, and Project Blitz. Pointers to websites that let me get involved. Addresses for grassroots organizations. But no. "You are responsible for the rest," is the all the guidance we're given. I found this to be a weak ending to an otherwise excellent book documenting an existential threat to this country's founding ideals. Recommended for those who want an America where "the separation of church and state is absolute."

[Dan Bouchelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

While this book presents itself as a refutation of Christian nationalism, it is really a Christopher Hitchens like attack on Christianity itself as evil. While the author makes a strong case against the claim that America was created by its founders to be a Christian nation, he does so with such contempt and animas for those with whom he disagrees that it puts the ethics and accuracy of his work into question. He cherry picks examples of bad religion and mixes them with out of context interpretations of Bible passages that virtually no confessing Christian or Jew would accept.

While it is frustrating to read such an work, it is good for Christians to see how we can come across to non-believers and be reminded how much damage syncretism with nationalism do to the cause of Christ. This is also a good reminder of how Muslims, Buddhists, and other non-Christians likely feel when Christians treat their views and scriptures to the same uncharitable interpretations in polemical apologetics rooted in arrogance and contempt.

[Brad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredibly informative, tirelessly researched, and worryingly prescient book that you need to read.

Mr. Seidel goes claim by claim, dismantling the oft-repeated argument that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principals.

Whats more, he somehow managed to craft a book this densely packed with citation into something incredibly tightly written, well paced, and absolutely accessable to anyone. A boring or dry textbook this is not.

[Kendra · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a fantastic book! Well written, an amazing and well articulated amount of info, and an intense, enjoyable read, too. In the quest for Christian Nationalism, the hypocrisy of CN's stand out. I appreciated the breakdown of the 10 Commandments vs the Constitution/Bill of Rights, etc., and how they fundamentally cannot work together. This will be an excellent multi-read, reference book.

[Jennifer Mangler · Rating 3 out of 5]

This helped me learn about issues I'd never explored in depth before, especially the first two sections.

[Clare · Rating 1 out of 5]

A rare DNF for me: the politics book group selected Andrew Seidel’s The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American for its November read. I only got about a third of the way through it when book club happened, and then I struggled through another few chapters before realizing I was only two-thirds of the way through it and it was deeply and viscerally obnoxious and not getting any better, and the nuggets of interesting or useful information that it did have were not worth how much I hated the framing, tone, and quality of actual argumentation (which I could generously describe as limited but am honestly more likely to just call bad).

It’s not just the shopworn angry-internet-atheist style of militant anti-theism that I took issue with, although I did take some issue with it–I don’t even really disagree with it so much as find it tiresome, and I think it’s ineffective audience-building. The book is nominally about the separation of church and state, so officially Seidel’s stance is something like “You can have whatever religious beliefs you want as long as they don’t include trying to meddle in the state,” but he simply cannot help himself–he just can’t pass up a single opportunity to also point out that all religious beliefs are bad and stupid and even if a particular belief isn’t necessarily bad on its face it’s still bad and stupid because it’s a religious belief, and if you’re religious and a good person it’s only because you’re bad at being religious, and especially that liberal Christians who have kind and loving religious beliefs only have them because they’re delusional dumbasses who don’t know anything about Christianity and haven’t read the Bible, etc. This seems to me like it’s unnecessarily limiting the audience for the book to exclude mildly or moderately religious liberals who believe upholding the separation between church and state is important, because they’re probably not going to want to sit through a book that can’t go two pages without personally insulting them no matter how badly Seidel has to misunderstand religious concepts to do so.

No, my real issue was this militant kind of anti-theism coming from someone who keeps using “un-American” to mean “bad” and “American” to mean “good.” When it comes to America and her many sins, Seidel can look at the good and the bad and decide that the result is a mixed bag, where the bad stuff is bad but the good stuff is good, so we should keep the general idea around and try to build on the good stuff but eliminate the bad stuff. This is an idea I do not necessarily share, but I am willing to put up with from people that are trying to make stuff better… usually. However, I am ultimately much more anti-American than anti-theist, and I could rewrite all of Seidel’s arguments about how everything even minimally associated with religion is bad, and if it’s not bad than it’s not actually religion, to be about America without breaking a sweat, and possibly in my sleep. The juxtaposition here is irritating enough before we even get into the degree to which many of Seidel’s arguments betray some deeply weird misunderstandings of not only religious doctrine, but also just how religion functions in normal non-Christian-nationalist people’s lives.

For an exhibit here we will take the case of Gouverneur Morris. Early in the book Seidel is discussing the Founding Fathers’ religious beliefs toward an end of disproving the right wing’s claims that they were all devout Christians. He goes through some really interesting stuff, like the total lack of any kind of discussion of personal religious belief in any of George Washington’s papers, his habit of going to church very rarely and always ducking out before Communion, and the history of the completely-made-up fable about his praying in the woods at Valley Forge. This was all really interesting. Seidel discusses a few other Founding Fathers’ religious beliefs based on stuff like “what they said about their religious beliefs during their lifetimes.” Then, for some absolutely inexplicable reason, he decides to talk about Gouverneur Morris, claiming him for the atheist side… because he had a sexual relationship out of wedlock.

That’s it. Nothing about whether he went to church or anything he said or did not say about God or Jesus or the afterlife or, you know, religion stuff. Seidel’s argument is that Christianity frowns upon being a slut, but Morris was a slut, therefore Morris was not a Christian, checkmate right-wingers. I’m sorry, but that is embarrassing. That argument was so bad it made me Catholic again. Just off the top of my head, here’s a few possible other explanations:
- Progressive Christianity: Someone could belong to a sect of Christianity that believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Our Lord and Savior but doesn’t believe the anti-slut stuff
- Cafeteria Christianity: Someone could belong to a sect of Christianity that believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Our Lord and Savior and that being a slut is bad, but be slightly heretical about it, and personally believe the Jesus stuff but not the slut stuff
- Half-assed Christianity: Someone could belong to a traditional sect of Christianity and nominally believe both the Jesus stuff and the slut stuff but think only the Jesus stuff is really that important, the rest is ideal but secondary
- Bad at Christianity: Someone could belong to a traditional sect and believe it etc. but just consistently not be very good at adhering to all its behavioral proscriptions. This is extremely common. I would be interested to hear if Seidel thinks that Ireland was able to spend decades exporting large numbers of newborn babies because its populace wasn’t full of dedicated Catholics, somehow.
- Just being a giant hypocrite: A weird option to apparently just wholly forget about in a book about Christian nationalism, IMO.

If we want to fling around “can’ts” I could say you can’t just be like “And we know this guy was a Deist because of all the stuff in his letters where he talks about Deism, and we know this other guy was a Deist because he kept a mistress” but lo and behold… somebody has! And it went to print with a real publisher and you can check it out at your local library and look at those words on the page yourself, if you wish to subject yourself to them. Many things you “can’t” do it turns out that you can absolutely do if you are shameless enough, and the fact that it requires shamelessness isn’t proof that nobody did it, because people are shameless all the friggin’ time. You could of course say that anyone who has sex outside of wedlock isn’t a real Christian, but at that point you are just doing the right wing’s work for them.

Anyway, I hate giving up on books, but I am putting this one down before it gives me an aneurysm; it feels too much like being on Twitter–just little isolated nuggets of interest swimming in a sea of absolute brainworms. I recommend also not reading it and, in addition, logging off, touching grass, and doing something materially useful for somebody.

Originally posted at In which I rant about Gouverneur Morris a lot.

[Jeff Koeppen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I saw Andrew Seidel speak at the University of Minnesota at a Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists event back in 2019 had the opportunity to meet him and have my book autographed. He is a constitutional and civil rights attorney and is sharp as a tack. With the rise in Christian nationalism in recent years, accelerated by the recent election, I thought it would be a good idea to finally get this this book which I should've read right away.

In The Founding Myth Seidel thoroughly and completely debunks the false narrative that the US was founded as a Christian nation. While Christianity was definitely the prevailing sect of religion before and during the founding of the US at the time, its founders crafted its founding documents to be deliberately godless with no credence given to the supernatural at all. Furthermore, many of the founders were deists and those identifying as Christian did not feel the need to include it in the founding documents of the US. I was enthralled with this book from beginning to end, and had to bust out my sticky notes because there were so many interesting facts and stories I want to revisit.

This book is very well researched and despite it being primarily a history book is chock full of interesting and sometimes humorous anecdotes. It is divided in to four parts. Part I: The Founders, Independence, and the Colonies addresses the religion of the founders, religion of the masses, the new country's declaration of independence from religious governance, reference to higher powers in the Declaration and how they came to be, and how the Christian settlements worked against nation building.

One of my favorite stores from Part I is about Ben Franklin and his lightning rod invention. This invention saved many buildings from lightning strikes, and prior to its arrival church bells were baptized with water from the River Jordan to ward off lightning. Despite its usefulness, organized Christianity fought this invention, thinking that humans did not have the right to defend against divine attacks and blamed other natural phenomenon such as the 1755 Boston earthquake on Franklin's invention. Sounds eerily similar to modern-day believers who blame natural disasters on what they deem "sinfulness"! Seidel also tells the story behind the famous "Washington praying at Valley Forge" image, which is also depicted in a painting currently in the National Portrait Gallery. This image was based a fable concocted by a fellow named Mason Weeks, an Episcopal priest. Washington's religiosity is thoroughly examined in this part.

Part II: United States vs. The Bible addresses topics such as biblical influence and obedience vs American freedom, bible vengeance vs American justice, original sin vs personal responsibility, and the monarchy vs the republic. Some of the memorable passages in this section are about the Puritans attacking and waging "holy war" against the native Pequots. The Purtians saw themselves as "instruments of their god's holy will". Over 700 natives were killed with the survivors sold in to slavery. Very Christian-like. Not to be outdone, Spanish admiral Pedro Menendez de Aviles slaughtered hundreds in Florida who refused to convert to Christianity. He was commended by Pope Pius V for doing "all that was requisite" to extend our "Holy Catholic faith".

In Part III: The Ten Commandments vs The Constitution Seidel goes through each commandment and points out how most do not align with our founding documents and how they represent a flawed religious code and not a legitimate moral code. Furthermore, there are at least three different sets of commandments - traditional Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc. The commandments reflect the archaic times in which men wrote them, based on misogamy and thoughtcrime. Making blasphemy a crime while crimes like rape, slavery, and child abuse go unaddressed. Not a great moral code for a new country.

Part IV: American Verbiage addresses what is my biggest pet peeve - these ridiculous national mottos and how they came to be. Seidel labels "In God We Trust" the belligerent motto; "One Nation Under God" the divisive motto; and, "God Bless America" the divisionary motto. Each one of these mottos has an interesting (and sad) origin story. The motto most recently adopted is the cringe-worthy "God Bless America" to close presidential remarks. This was started by Richard Nixon who was trying to revive popular piety started by Eisenhower in the 1950s. Those of us who are baseball fans are now asked to stand for the singing of "God Bless America" during the 7th inning of Sunday MLB games. Religion continues its creep.

Near its ending, Seidel wraps up his excellent book with the following quote: "Christian nationalists have successfully persuaded too many Americans to abandon our heritage, to spurn our secular foundations in favor of their myth. We need to remind Americans that our Constitution demands an absolute separation between church and state as John Kennedy said. We must raise hell when the wall of separation between church and state is breached. We must, as (James) Madison warned, take "alarm at the first experiment on our liberties". "

I think this is an important read for our times. Lets make Margaret Atwood fiction again!

[Eric Wurm · Rating 5 out of 5]

The idea of Christianity being the official religion of the American nation is obviously not based on law, history or the intent of the forefathers. Anyone who has read the constitution or a biography of Thomas Jefferson knows this. But to ask that of American Christians is a big ask. Even so, they likely would not change their rhetoric, because they have demonstrated at every turn that their beliefs are more important to them than the truth.

This is why a book like this is so incredibly important. Americans need to understand that the innovation of separation between church and state, a true secular society is of the greatest and most important features of our Republic. That isn't just so for unbelievers, but is even more important for believers. While they may believe that the founders were Christians, this is naive and not based in evidence. Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that there would be protections in our new nation for religious groups to worship as they see fit (or not at all). Who were the Danbury Baptists worried about oppressing their sect? It wasn't Mohammedans or Jews or Anglicans or even Catholics. It was the majority Danbury Congregationalists, another Christian sect. Jefferson described his "wall of separation between church and state" which became codified in our constitution in the Bill of Rights, in our very first amendment. It was so important it was included with the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Yet many American Christians deny that this wall of separation exists and argue that it should not. Thankfully the Supreme Court has acknowledged Jefferson's intent in crafting the amendment. However, as we have seen, the Supreme Court has turned into a hollow shell of itself, having abandoned the ideas of disinterested jurists for its modern version, with a 6 member majority of Catholic Republicans not even attempting to create the illusion of unbiased rulings and flaunting their ability to smash precedent and the constitution on a whim.

It is the most dangerous time in history for American law and rights. The right to own guns is seen by many on the right as superseding the right to not be shot by them or even the right to live. How can one pursue life, liberty and happiness without being alive? Our court could bury many rights we have fought for and many have died or been imprisoned to bring about. Every single right that the political right does not value is in danger of non-existence and extinction. The only silver lining there is that the Republicans have managed to steal court seats and presidencies and Congressional seats via gerrymandering and the Electoral College and Senate obstructionism, but these advantages are tenuous, as they operate with a clear minority. Eventually this farce will collapse as younger generations who oppose their values go more and more to the polls and Baby Boomers die off. They won't have enough power to rule as a minority anymore. The court will be reordered, the Republican Catholic majority dissolved. The only question I have is "why wait?". There is no law directing how many Supreme Court seats there should be. Democrats could stuff the court, and should. They should seat another 12 members, possibly with a law that has 7 justices selected at random for each ruling. There is no need to wait for these justices to die. Why would we do so?

This book lays out the real religious history of the US in law and practice. People in the 1800's went to church far more rarely and less of them went at all. Jefferson took a razor to the Bible and cut out all the nonsense and miracles and was left with a highly abbreviated edition called "The Life and Moral Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth", also known as the Jefferson Bible. He was no Christian. John Adams wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that America was in no way founded on the Christian religion. Ben Franklin said that lighthouses are more useful than churches. That's still true today, even with GPS guidance systems on boats. Thomas Paine was almost certainly based on his writing an atheist. Most of the founders were deists, not Christians and we're a hair away from atheism.

If you want to know whether or not America is a Christian nation founded on Christian values, this book answers that question definitively and decisively.

[Aileen · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to know how and why we ended up where we are, with Christians and fascism intertwining, from the most recent atrocity of the January 6 attack on the American capital, to the increasing suppression of human rights in America, please read this book.

Well written and breathtakingly researched, it starts off slowly, as the author lays the groundwork, but hammers the points down in flawless rhetoric.

11/10.

[Sylvia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book about the backgrounds of the founding of the US and how over the time the ideals of the Founding Fathers withered and seems to be forgotten. It would be a good thing if students in the US would read this book and realize that the US is founded on a strict separation of church and state.

[Krystina Schuler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for everyone and ought to be included in all ninth grade US history classes with an apology from the publishers of the elementary school versions we're fed as kids for the spin they put on colonial America and revolutionary America's past.

Seidel does an excellent job laying out the actual basis for the founding of America, using primary source material whenever possible, and why the idea of a US government resting on any sort of Jewish or Christian foundation is absurd.

Devout religious folks will likely scoff at this book and put it in their did not finish pile of books, and Nones already accept the arguments put forth. It's those moderate and liberal religious people who should devour this book and see it as the warning it is - that failing to maintain a separation of church and state if bad for everyone! If there ever was a case to be made, in clear, straightforward terms, for the continued and strengthened separation of church and state this is it.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is generally an excellent resource putting the lie to the political myth of Christian Nationalism. And I recommend it for that reason. It's well documented and well reasoned. The author loses a star because as much as the book is overall very good, it is marred by the author's own judgmentalism regarding others who hold to a spiritual belief system of any kind. He also falls into the same literalist trap he criticizes Christians of doing when he does not make the effort to better understand textual history, translation, and other nuances...EXCEPT when it serves his thesis to do so.

That being said, I think the book is a valuable resource in educating yourself to better combat the ongoing battle for the soul of America in the age of the Trump Christian Right.

[Sarah Eliason · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted so much more out of this book. As a Native person who is Christian, I struggle with Christian Nationalism. So I was excited to learn more about the founding of the US and what influence religion actually had on the founding fathers, rather than the legends we’ve been told. I was really disappointed that the bulk of it felt like religious bashing. I see the author’s point - that if we’re going to say our laws are found on biblical values, we, as Christians should understand what is actually in the Bible. But I was looking for something that would help to build bridges within my Christian community, and this wasn’t it. Part 1 was helpful, and some of Part 4. The rest was not.

[Dylan · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’re going to read this book, you’ve probably already made your mind up, or know what way you’re leaning in regards to how you’ll feel about this book. That’s a long run on sentence. But my point is, you’ll either agree with the title, or you don’t. What follows inside is just a backup of the title. Do you want that? Do you want to hear what the author has to say about the thesis statement on the cover? I did. So I read it.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for everyone. Don't let this one slip by. If you care at all about your country, you owe it to yourself to read this book.

[Greg · Rating 2 out of 5]

Boy, do I ever have mixed feelings about this book!

While I totally agree with his major argument – that those who claim that the United States was founded to be a “Christian nation” are flat-out wrong – I take strong issue with the often quite offensive way in which he goes further than just proving his thesis by attacking not only Christianity but all religion as sources of grave evil and as a refuge for the ignorant.

The central argument with which I agree

Seidel defines Christian nationalists as “historical revisionists bent on ‘restoring’ America to the Judeo-Christian principles on which they wish it was founded. They believe that secular America is a myth, and under the guise of restoration they seek to press religion into every crevice of government. They not only think it appropriate for the government to favor one religion over others, but also believe America was designed to favor Christianity. To them, America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and promoting that belief is a religious duty.”

I agree that there are such people, that they are quite numerous, and that their leadership has been fixed on gaining more state recognition, funding, and power over the last 50 years. This is manifested in many diverse ways, including their successful efforts to insert “originalist” justices on the Supreme, appellate, and district courts, their drive to impose their beliefs about abortion on the entire nation, their push to get federal and state funding for private (including religious) schools, and their work to insert – or remove – certain subjects from school curricula (as, for but one example, the teaching of creationism as being equally valid as evolution). Many of these groups are evangelical, but they are also joined by a sizable number of Catholics who are spurred on by an increasingly conservative American hierarchy.

Among the most active and vocal are politicians, evangelical pastors, and lay ministers.

As a Jesus follower from the Roman Catholic tradition, not only do I resist any form of “Christian nationalism,” but I am struck at how little – if any – of their language and efforts are directed toward encouraging believers to speak and behave towards others as Jesus did and taught. Jesus taught that if we are to really transform our world we need first to transform ourselves. This vital message is almost totally missing from the language and efforts of today’s most visible self-named “Christians.”

As a historian and a student of the Constitution and of the Revolutionary period I support the facts of history and written documents that prove that while many of the Founders were themselves Christians (or Deists, monotheists) they did not want to have any religion involved in the governing of the new nation. Their refusal was based not only on their understanding of history – in which religion repeatedly played a central role in bloody struggles between and within nations in the past – but also on their own experience as Americans in recalling colonial history, in which early colonies often favored one type of Christianity over others.

They made this explicit in the First Amendment to the Constitution as we read in its first clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....”

No law means no law.

Not only did the Founders NOT open the sessions of the Constitutional Convention with prayers, but when it was proposed that there should be a “chaplain” for the Congress it was voted down overwhelmingly.

Some caveats and nuances

1) The Founders
The Founders were neither “irreligious” or “against” religion, but they did not wear their faith “on their sleeves,” if you will, like so many self-proclaimed “Christians” do today. Many of them were apparently devout members of their various Reform (Protestant) sects and also believed that their new republic could not survive long if its citizens lost their moral fiber. And, as Tocqueville observed in the early 1830s, many believed that religious principles were a key ingredient in contributing to – and maintaining – such a virtuous citizenry.

But in their day, very much unlike our own, the central thrust of the message they received from their respective pulpits had to do with personal behavior, not diatribes about government or government policies. And this was the element that the Founders believed important in the formation of good citizens: faithful adherence to the “common decencies” as taught in Christianity, such as the sanctity of marriage, the importance of honor and honesty, and the necessity and dignity of hard work. All of this was vital if Americans were to resist the temptation to excessive individualism.

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his fascinating observations of the young republic published in the 1830s, stressed his own conviction that the influence of religion (meaning Christianity) had a vital role off-setting excessive individualism since its moral precepts stressed the importance of caring for others. However, as he had warned in volume one, if religious bodies began to intrude on specific matters of the state – by, for instance, instructing their congregations on whom to vote for – they would lose their broader positive interest on the broader society even as they perhaps gained a tighter hold on their congregants. Should this latter occur, this all-important brake on excessive individualism would be severely weakened. (It appears to me that this fear has been realized in our own time, and the ethical rot that is so widespread among officeholders today is but one consequence.)

2) Today’s more conservative Christians
But not all of conservative Christians are Christian nationalists, by any means.

I believe that there are a larger number of Americans who, while not being as extreme as Christian nationalists, nonetheless do believe that America is fundamentally a religious nation, and that the reference to “In God We Trust” on our coinage and the insertion of “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance are most appropriate.

In today’s red-hot cultural wars, these folks do not see themselves as imposing their beliefs on anyone but, rather, on pushing back against secular values that they not only do not share, but in many cases abhor.

I believe that both “left” and “right” have gravely erred by insisting that this or that group of people is “all this” or “none of that.” As tribal as we can be, we remain individuals, and our views of life and of others is heavily influenced by our own experiences and by those close to us.

In this matter and in all others, the struggle is not simply between the “woke,” informed, and progressive “against” those who are ignorant, misinformed, and very conservative! Rather, the current struggle is the result of so many people – as groups and as individuals – feeling left out, misunderstood, dissed, or regarded with contempt.

The dreadful part of the book

It is extremely unfortunate that Seidel not only broadly condemns “religion,” but treats it as something that always leads to disagreement or worse.

Most of the greatest people I have known have been people of faith, albeit more of the putting into practice Jesus’ teachings than loudly proclaiming any doctrines. Their faith gave them a quiet, humble centeredness that linked them to the rest of us. They were people who inspired me to “do better, be better,” because their lived example was so inspiring.

My twelve years in elective office also repeatedly brought me into contact with folks decidedly less educated or knowledgeable than others who, nonetheless, exhibited a quiet decency that was nourished from their own faith beliefs, many of which I either did not share or with which I took with a considerable measure of salt.

And there is little doubt that the Black experience in America, as horrific as it has been for centuries, would have been immeasurably worse without the Black Church.

It is simply not balanced, let alone fair, to write a jeremiad (no pun intended) against religion without pointing out the many ways it has contributed to individual and collective advances.

Lastly, while Seidel does liberally sprinkle his argument with citations from the Bible (both testaments), he offers some truly awful (for us today) passages largely out of context. This is important because at least some of these are included precisely to warn against their reoccurrence or to illustrate that such-and-such is not what the Holy One wished. The authors of the biblical books were quite aware that their story was an ongoing one in which individuals, and the people as a whole, learned some lessons (although, just like us, not always sufficiently taking them to heart so as to change behavior).

From my point of view, the result of all this is a book perfectly designed not to appeal to, nor be read by, those who most need to learn its warning against Christian nationalism. The average person – so often diminished when referenced – is someone who deserves to be respected and, therefore, one who deserves an honest, measured presentation.

This book does not do that.

Several times throughout the book the author proudly mentions that he is an “atheist.” Well, bully! But, from my point of view, it takes even more pride and arrogance to proclaim that no Creator can possibly exist than to believe that such a one does. Agnostics are honest, for their confessed doubt does not lead them to assert what they cannot possibly know. Atheists, no more than theists, can know anything about the existence or non-existence of “God,” YHWH, Allah, or any of the other names given to that which is.

I am no more likely to be persuaded by the arguments of an arrogant atheist than I am by an arrogant true believer.

How I wish this had been less of a tirade and more of a reasoned argument! The book would have much shorter, and much more readable, had it been.

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amen to this book. So we all know deep down that the founders of the USA were original thinkers and were pretty radical for their time, deeply influenced by enlightenment values. But, yet we here more and more, every day that this is a Christian nation and that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were founded on Christian values and we need to meld god and government to get back to where we came from. Seidel, who is an accomplished lawyer, destroys this claim. (I'll take a break for those of you who are already offended to say that having a government without state religion actually strengthens religion, as the author says, so say a little prayer and read this book). Now, we all know we've got these true believers like Mike Pence and total phonies like Donald Trump who wave religion around the state, in the first case to save us, and in the second to get votes. But aside from getting people to stop thinking and vote for you, what are they accomplishing aside from making their political religion an absolute joke to the rest of us? Seidel argues that they are accomplishing the dismantling of a vital part of our founding (and making their religion a joke). I could quote 50 or 60 lines from our founders, who despite their flaws, actually read books and had moral and intelligent reasons for the wall of separation, but I'll just quote the motto from from first coin made by the USA which was designed by Benjamin Franklin (not "In God We Trust)… Mind Your Own Business! Hey, you might even end up with a religion that can stand on its own merits in the process. Total win/win. Amen. God Bless America! (first uttered at the close of a presidential speech by Nixon in his famous Watergate speech). Good stuff, don't let my belligerence stop you from reading it.