Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty

by Steven Waldman

The culture wars have distorted the dramatic story of how Americans came to worship freely. Many activists on the right maintain that the United States was founded as a “Christian nation.” Many on the left contend that the First Amendment was designed to boldly separate church and state. Neither of these claims is true, argues Beliefnet.com editor in chief Steven Waldman. With refreshing objectivity, Waldman narrates the real story of how our nation’s Founders forged a new approach to religious liberty.

Founding Faith vividly describes the religious development of five Founders. Benjamin Franklin melded the Puritan theology of his youth and the Enlightenment philosophy of his adulthood. John Adams’s pungent views on religion stoked his revolutionary fervor and shaped his political strategy. George Washington came to view religious tolerance as a military necessity. Thomas Jefferson pursued a dramatic quest to “rescue” Jesus, in part by editing the Bible. Finally, it was James Madison who crafted an integrated vision of how to prevent tyranny while encouraging religious vibrancy.

The spiritual custody battle over the Founding Fathers and the role of religion in America continues today. Waldman at last sets the record straight, revealing the real history of religious freedom to be dramatic, unexpected, paradoxical, and inspiring.

Genres: History, Religion, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, American Revolution, Biography

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

STEVEN WALDMAN is the national bestselling author of Founding Faith and the co-founder of Beliefnet, the award-winning multifaith website. He is now co-founder and President of Report for America, a national service program that places talented journalists into local newsrooms. His writings have also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, National Review, Christianity Today, The Atlantic, First Things, The Washington Monthly, Slate, The New Republic and others. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife, Amy Cunningham.

Reviews

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intelligent and well-researched look at the thoughts, feelings and beliefs about religion of the Founding Fathers. When it comes down to it, there is no hard and fast "truth" about their intent. Not only did each of them have different positions, but, as Waldman shows, they often tempered them for political reasons. Better a partial win than a total loss:

“I believe there’s ample evidence that Madison wanted a strict separation of church and state. He wanted it locally; he wanted it nationally. But here’s a point that all of us Founding Father Lovers forget: It is not only their views that matter. Madison was in the business of building a political majority. We today may not pay attention to the other members of his legislative majority, but Madison sure did.” 154

Madison comes out as the hero in this book. He believed that religion would best flourish if left alone by the government:

“[Madison] and his Baptist allies would be mystified by the assumption that being pro-separation means being anti-God. How on earth does it follow that if you treasure religion, you’d want government touching it? Church and state, when married, bring out the worst in each other, Madison would say. If God is powerful, he does not need the support of the Treasury.” 201

Until the Civil War led to the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, in 1866, the legal separation of church and state was only mandated for the federal government. It was a concession made necessary by the greater urgency of getting the Constitution passed.

Side bar: One interesting fact--George Washington forbade persecution of Catholics--they had been victimized by some soldiers. He knew the religious diversity of the troops of the Continental army and didn't want to alienate any of them.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and readable account of the role played by religion in the founding of the United States and how both liberals and conservatives are partly wrong in cherry picking the founding fathers for support in their separation of church and state arguments. Makes a good case for the Revolutionary War as being a religious conflict (the participants certainly thought so)--as various religious factions fought to keep the Anglican church from becoming the established (tax supported) church throughout the colonies. The personal religious views of Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison are carefully discussed and distinguished. The account of Benjamin Franklin rewriting the Lord's Prayer to suit himself was particularly surprising to me. Not a single phrase suited him, and he explained step by step why the King James version seemed inadequate to him. His rationale for his changes would make a good start for any discussion of what the prayer means. Somewhat repetitious, but overall full of fascinating detail I've never seen before. (But then, I'm not a student of the subject.)

[R.M. Archer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Waldman takes a balanced view of the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers, through the proper lens of the culture of the time, and addresses misused quotes on both sides of the culture wars. Balance is hard to find these days, so I greatly appreciated Waldman's approach.

[Clinton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting and lucid history of religious liberty in the US by the editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com. The book has two purposes: 1. Providing a layman's overview of the evolution of religious freedom, mostly focusing on the founding fathers, esp. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison and 2. debunking the myths used most frequently by the contemporary secularist left and Christian right. One key idea that gets lost with distance and revision is that 18th century evangelicals--especially Virginia Baptists--were some of the most fervent advocates of the separation of church and state.

Also debunks the idea that all of the founders were Deists. In Waldman's view, not one was purely Deist. Rather, all those featured had life-long spiritual evolutions that they thought (and wrote, with the exception of Washington) long and hard about.

Features short, fast-paced chapters with extensive footnotes.

Further complicates (for the better, this time) recent things I've read about Thomas Jefferson. That guy was like an onion.

If you like Joseph J. Ellis' brand of American history, you'll probably like this.

[Kris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some useful ideas, but nothing spectacular. He goes through some historical facts, analyzes the personal faith of some Founding Fathers, and debunks some common “church vs. state” myths. He intentionally picks apart weaknesses on both sides of the debate, in an attempt to remain impartial, which is a nice effort.

I don’t regret reading it, but would not recommend this as a perfect go-to book on religion in early America. Instead, I would recommend If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, or even Written Out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government.

I think these books are similar:
America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln
Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America

[Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written treatise that looks at the contributions of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison to the separation of church and state in this country. Both liberal and conservative myths are debunked in this treatment. Madison, who comes off being the guiding spirit of religious liberty, was able to capitalize on the local politics in his state of Baptists feeling persecuted by the Episcopalian establishment. Washington realized that his troops and this country were too disparate to permit religious hegemony as was practiced in the several states to that time. Jefferson, ever the questioning firebrand and critical of organized Christianity still had a deep and abiding faith in Providence. Adams evolves into a much more tolerant president than he was when he fostered the Congregational Church in Massachusetts. Fear of Catholicism impelled many of their decisions.

One sees these men as the fallible conflicted living humans they were rather than spiritually pure philosophers.

[LindaJ^ · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book examines how religious freedom was woven into the US Constitution. To do this, the author focuses on the religious beliefs and contributions of five of the "founding fathers" -- Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. He also explores religious bigotry and intolerance in the colonies, the diversity of religious belief in the members of the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention, and why and how the First Amendment freedom of religion came about. While doing this, he shows how current "liberals" and "conservatives" cherry pick the quotes of the five to support their position. It is an interesting look religion in American from 1608 (Jamestown) through the last of the five to die (Madison). At the end, the author provides his own opinions. Good book if you enjoy American history and ever wondered why the US Constitution has an Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion and how that amendment should be interpreted. The author is relatively unbiased.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

When it comes to the role of religion in politics, modern conservatives and liberals are talking past each other. Both groups get some aspects of the history of faith in politics right, and both distort certain aspects of this history to appear more advantageous to their argument.

Founding Faith shows that appealing to the founders as the last word on the role of faith in politics and civic life doesn't answer the questions. There was considerable disagreement among the founders about the extent of separation, and whether the First Amendment only applied at the federal level or at the state level.

This is a fascinating read (and an easy one, too!). Anyone interested in U.S. history, politics, and/or religion will enjoy this book. It ought to be required reading for secular liberals and religious conservatives. And it ought to bring some peace of mind to religious liberals and non-religious conservatives.

[Albert · Rating 5 out of 5]

I urgently believe this book is a must-read for the present generation -- not just for evangelicals (who, sadly, might be too closed-minded to read it) but also for secular humanists. A refreshingly objective review of the importance of the separation of church and state in this country, addressed to a generation that has already forgotten, by attacking myths perpetrated by both sides of the debate. It is so interesting that evangelicals pushed so hard for the creation of the church-state separation in order to escape persecution from other Christian groups in the US. Now, two centuries later, now that they have become the new persecutors, they don't need it the clause anymore, so they want to get rid of it. This is either hypocrisy on a grand scale or breath-taking ignorance. I come away from this book feeling greatly edified.

[Thad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! I love it when a historian tries to show that everything is not just black and white. This was a great book, and showed how the Founding Father's ideas were developed both out of a personal spirituality as well as a pragmatic view of the need for society to be governed by the social order that religion creates, while not allowing religion to compete with government, or vice versa. Well-researched, with arguments that were well thought out and expressed to suggest what Jefferson, Madison and others thought about religion and its place in the public sphere.

An immensely rewarding read.

[Gregory Eakins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Discussions of the opinions of highly influential dead guys from a bygone era rarely get far before the author's own bias takes over.

In Founding Faith, Steven Waldman has compiled a surprisingly well balanced discussion of the religious beliefs of the founders of America and their intentions when founding the country. It's well organized and extremely well researched. This is the guy who always set the curve in your college English class.

It's hard to find fault with any of his observations or conclusions, though I did find one quote from Einstein taken out of context to show that Einstein was religious.

This is written like a college level history report, so be prepared for some monotonous stretches of historical facts and accounts on your road to better understanding the genius of the founding fathers.

[Matt Hession · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great unbiased look at the founding fathers, their faith, and its impact on our country.

[Tom Schulte · Rating 4 out of 5]

As usual, reality, the truth, is complicated. This book explores the varied and even inconsistent and changing religion views mixed with political expediency. I have read before how in 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted a law called Penalty for Keeping Christmas. The notion was that such “festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries” were a “great dishonor of God and offence of others.” Anyone found celebrating Christmas by failing to work, “feasting, or any other way… shall pay for every such offence five shillings.” This was part of how the 17th century Puritans had laws forbidding the ecclesiastical celebration of Christmas, unlike the Catholic Church or the Anglican Church, from the latter of which they separated. Because indeed many of the early, religiously motivated colonials wanted to 'purify' Christianity of "popery" and even Paul ... heck Jefferson made a scrapbook of Jesus' quotes to separate the worthy moralizing from the doubtful divinity and miracles. As the original colonies were generally mini-theocracies and setting aside Maryland generally anti-Catholic there was a sensible movement to keep any federal government out of trying to impose anything national over this patchwork. (Maryland appears to have lost Catholic rule by having a lax and inviting immigrant policy allowing it to be overrun with Protestants.) Catholicism was concerning at that time and I feel I can detect the seeds of later xenophobic fear of Catholic immigrants from Europe:

As North Carolina delegate Henry Abbott warned, citizens now feared that without a ban on Catholic officeholders, some nation could, through force, compel us to adopt Catholicism as the official religion. The ban on religious tests, Abbott declared, also made it possible that "pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us"-and he wondered "to whom will they swear support-the ancient gods of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or Pluto?" The Reverend David Caldwell argued for a new, improved test that would block "Jews and pagans of every kind."

Most vividly, a writer in the New York Daily Advertiser offered this creatively paranoid analysis that was reprinted in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts: "1st. Quakers who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defense-2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity-3dly. Deists, abominable wretches-4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil-6thly. Jews etc. etc." And should the president be Jewish, "our dear posterity may be ordered to rebuild Jerusalem."

While knocking back Catholics and Quakers, many wanted any feds out of the fight and the enlightened view appears to have been to keep the pulpit away from the politician.

We shouldn't conclude from these extreme instances that most people thought the Constitution bad for religion. Far from it. Baptist leader John Leland praised it for following the broad principle that government stay out of religion. At the Massachusetts convention, the Reverend Isaac Backus declared that religious tests had been the "greatest engine of tyranny in the world," and praised the revolutionary new document for recognizing that "Nothing is more evident both in reason and the Holy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and, therefore no man or men can impose any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ." After Pennsylvania ratified, Philadelphia sponsored a celebratory parade. Watching from the side, Dr. Benjamin Rush noticed a rabbi and two Christian ministers marching arm in arm and thought it a perfect symbol of the Constitution's ban on religious tests. "There could not have been a more happy emblem contrived of that section of the new constitution, which opens all its power and offices alike, not only to every sect of Christians, but to worthy men of every religion."

The absence of God from the Constitution was pro-religion, but in a way that was not obvious to all. Much of the population had been raised to believe that to ensure a religion's health, the state must support it. The Constitution demanded a paradigm shift, away from public responsibility and toward private.

...

Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut declared that while he agreed with Madison's interpretation of the words, the amendment could actually "be extremely harmful to the cause of religion." He said he feared that it might force federal courts to disallow local religious establishments, such as the one in Connecticut. "The ministers of their congregations to the Eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner." If the Bill of Rights forbade establishments in general, wouldn't it wipe out their admirable local practice of providing tax support for their ministers? He noted that someone in Connecticut could refuse to pay taxes to support the local church and justify it on the grounds that so doing would constitute a forbidden religious establishment. (Note again that he viewed tax support for religion as being the same thing as an "establishment.") Clearly, Congress ought to let states regulate these things. Otherwise the federal lawmakers might give inadvertent legitimacy to "those who pro-fessed no religion at all."

Then, the reporter stated, Madison tried to assuage Huntington that the amendment referred only to national activity and suggested again putting back the word national: "Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel...

Compromise was needed.

Because all the major players agreed that the states would regulate religion, the First Amendment could pass even though there was no consensus about the philosophical matter of how separate church should be from state. Some lawmakers, like Madison, supported the First Amendment because they wanted separation of church and state at all levels of American life. Some, like Huntington, wanted local government support of religion and believed the First Amendment language protected the states' rights to continue the practice. Yes, some supported the First Amendment because they wanted more separation of church and state, while others supported it because they wanted less.

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists itself is Holy Writ to separation adherents. This book provides insightful context to what was going that Jefferson was involving himself in.

Why did Jefferson ostentatiously bring a Baptist preacher before Congress? For one thing, it happens that this ardent separationist regularly at-tended religious services held in the Capitol and raised no church-state objections. More intriguingly, though, James Hutson of the Library of Congress has argued that Jefferson invited Leland because he knew something the audience didn't: He had already received an interesting letter from the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, and two days earlier had written a reply that would become one of the most important-and controversial-statements on religious liberty. It was in that letter to the Danbury Baptists that Jefferson wrote that the American people had approved the Constitution, "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

These words, religious conservatives often point out, appear in no official documents. Not the Constitution or the Declaration or the Virginia statute. Yet when the Supreme Court first in 1879 (Reynolds v. United States) and then more famously in 1947 and 1948 (Everson v. Board of Education and McCollum v. Board of Education) cited that phrase as its guidepost for deciding cases about church and state, it became the governing metaphor that would shape public debate for decades to come. Advocates of separation of church and state cite it as a seminal founding document, while conservative Christians wax furious over the importance the letter has taken on.

Let's therefore examine the real story of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

The Danbury Baptist Association was founded in 1790 as a coalition of about twenty-six churches in the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut, it should be remembered, had established Congregationalism as its official state religion. The Baptists therefore had to pay taxes to support the salaries of Congregational ministers. Baptist ministers were not legally authorized to conduct marriages. Their ministers faced harassment and limits on where they could preach." It was as a persecuted religious minority that they wrote to President Jefferson with congratulations, praise, and a plea for help.

James Madison comes across as the most articulate and visionary commentator on Separation of Church and State.

On the question of whether clergy could survive without state support, the jury was in: "the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." Historians have indicated that Madison's observations were factual. By 1850, the percentage of the population connected to a church was 34 percent, double what it was in 1776, fueled largely by the growth of the Baptists and Methodists, who proliferated as the establishments crumbled.

In 1833, when Madison was eighty-two years old, he wrote a letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams admitting that the radical approach to religious freedom had been an experiment. Some countries in Europe had tried different formulas, but it "remained for North America to bring the great & interesting subject to a fair, and finally to a decisive test." Again he concluded: Separation of church and state had helped create true religious freedom, which had, in turn, increased the quality and intensity of faith.

[Denny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Founding Faith is by far the best, most balanced book on the subject of the American Founding Fathers and their beliefs about religion and religious freedom and how both should be exercised by citizens and government. Waldman works hard to debunk claims made by writers and thinkers on the left and right of the Culture Wars and to restore the Founders' original meaning and context to the process of creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He succeeds spectacularly. As soon as I have a little extra money, I'll be adding this one to my shelf!

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Few things are more divisive than the role of religion in American society, and particularly so when it comes to what what part the Founding Fathers "intended" it to play during the nation's birth. "Founding Faith" was an extremely well-balanced and informative work on a topic that's willfully misrepresented by probably about 85% of those discussing it in our public discourse.

While liberals and conservatives both selectively cite quotations in order to claim the Jeffersons, Washingtons, and Madisons as their own when it comes to the separation of church and state, talking about what "the Founding Fathers believed about religion" is something akin to talking about what the American people feel about religion:

There's no singular answer.

Waldman does an excellent job making clear just how unclear the Founders views were, both at the time and within the context of contemporary discussions on religion and society. Readers across the political and faith spectrum will find this a valuable read as it shows them how little they actually know about what "everyone knows" about our forefathers.

[RJ Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

FOUNDING FAITH: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America by Steven Waldman. Had I read this wonderfully researched book before now, say, six or so decades or ago, I might have saved myself from foolish statements when any of those several conversations came along about "what the founding fathers thought." Faith in America inevitably comes to questions of school prayer, abortion, or Nativity scenes at the courthouse, and the rhetoric and volume soon escalate. The left asserts that, etc etc etc. Conservatives say absolutely not, etc etc etc. Before long the Constitutional questions are debated as in many a high school debate class, with enthusiastic appeals to authority. What did the Founding Fathers think? If we can just crawl into their head (note the singularity) we can figure out what to do right now to avoid straying away from our Christian (or secular) roots!

What Steven Waldman has done in this book is to dive very deeply into the history. He sets out to display in quite readable prose what the founders wrote, argued, or said regarding the Constitution and the subsequently legislated Bill of Rights. Neither was the result, as some would have it, of a uniform mindset of Deists, or a uniform mindset of "Christians." Rather, the founders had different views on religion. There were Anglicans, Quakers, Baptists, Puritans, Trinitarians, Unitarians and a handful of lesser known faiths and non-faiths. Each tended to group together such that regions (states) were comfortable with some beliefs and prohibitive of others. For some of the Founders, faith was even fluid; Adams, Jefferson and Franklin modified their beliefs as time wore on. What's more, the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were political developments that necessitated compromise. Nobody got everything they wanted when it came to separation of church and state. Especially important politically was the leadership of Washington in the Revolution because he could not expect to win if he alienated or excluded important allies. Catholics, especially loathed among colonists, were impressively welcomed by Washington's army, for example.

What Waldman expertly does is take his readers on a fair-handed examination of history. To illustrate, here's a quote from near the end of Waldman's book, when he discusses fallacies on both sides of the "liberal" or "conservative" arguments about what the Founding Fathers believed:

"...on other points the founders disagreed. Some believed that government could and should support religion because a vibrant faith sector was essential to a functioning democracy. Others -- most notably James Madison and Thomas Jefferson -- believed that government support for, or use of, religion would invariably harm both, and that the safest route was to always err on the side of strict separation."

Central to the crafting of the First Amendment and the ideas of separation was, of course, James Madison. It was his mind that seemed to foresee the difficulties in language, what one author has called "Madison's Music." He is the one deserving much of the credit (or the blame) for the First Amendment, and an examination of his thinking is essential in understanding what the Founders intended.

In fact, there is a book with the title "Madison's Music," and it's next on my reading list. For now, I highly recommend Waldman's book and give it the highest marks for fair, even-handed and historically based background on the notion of separation of church and state. In a way, it's too bad Waldman's book was published in 2008. It would be very interesting to have his thoughts on the recent use of force to clear a pathway so that the president could be photographed holding the bible (upside down), in an apparent attempt to bolster his support among modern-day Christians. Separation is not an issue we can correctly say has been decided.

[Kai Palchikoff]

The culture wars have distorted the dramatic story of how Americans came to worship freely. Many activists on the right maintain that the United States was founded as a Ì_Ì_ÌÂChristian nation.Ì_Ì_å Many on the left contend that the Founders were secular or Deist and that the First Amendment was designed to boldly separate church and state throughout the land. None of these claims are true, argues Beliefnet.com editor in chief Steven Waldman. With refreshing objectivity, Waldman narrates the real story of how our nationÌ_Ì_åÈs Founders forged a new approach to religious liberty, a revolutionary formula that promoted faith . . . by leaving it alone.This fast-paced narrative begins with earlier settlersÌ_Ì_åÈ stunningly unsuccessful efforts to create a Christian paradise, and concludes with the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, during which the men who had devised lofty principles regarding the proper relationship between church and state struggled to practice what theyÌ_Ì_åÈd preached. We see how religion helped cause, and fuel, the Revolutionary War, and how the surprising alliance between Enlightenment philosophers such as Jefferson and Madison and evangelical Christians resulted in separation of church and state.As the drama unfolds, Founding Faith vividly describes the religious development of five Founders. Benjamin Franklin melded the morality-focused Puritan theology of his youth and the reason-based Enlightenment philosophy of his adulthood. John AdamsÌ_Ì_åÈs pungent views on religionÌ_Ì_̱hatred of the Church of England and Roman CatholicsÌ_Ì_̱stoked his revolutionary fervor and shaped his political strategy. George Washington came to view religious tolerance as a military necessity. Thomas Jefferson pursued a dramatic quest to Ì_Ì_ÌÂrescueÌ_Ì_å Jesus, in part by editing the Bible. Finally, it was James MadisonÌ_Ì_̱the tactical leader of the battle for religious freedomÌ_Ì_̱who crafted an integrated vision of how to prevent tyranny while encouraging religious vibrancy.The spiritual custody battle over the Founding Fathers and the role of religion in America continues today. Waldman provocatively argues that neither side in the culture war has accurately depicted the true origins of the First Amendment. He sets the record straight, revealing the real history of religious freedom to be dramatic, unexpected, paradoxical, and inspiring.An interactive library of the key writings by the Founding Father, on separation of church and state, personal faith, and religious liberty can be found at www.beliefnet.com/foundingfaith.Praise for Founding FaithÌ_Ì_ÌÂSteven Waldman, a veteran journalist and co-founder of Beliefnet.com, a religious web site, surveys the convictions and legacy of the founders clearly and fairly, with a light touch but a careful eye.Ì_Ì_åÌ_Ì_̨New York Times Book ReviewÌ_Ì_ÌÂWaldman ends by encouraging us to be like the founders. We should understand their principles, learn from their experience, then have at it ourselves. Ì_Ì_ÌÂWe must pick up the argument that they began and do as they instructed Ì_Ì_̱ use our reason to determine our views.Ì_Ì_å A good place to start is this entertaining, provocative book.Ì_Ì_åÌ_Ì_̨New York Times Book Review'Steven Waldman's enlightening new book, 'Founding Faith,' is wise and engaging on many levels, but Waldman has done a particular service in detailing Madison's role in creating a culture of religious freedom that has served America so well for so longÌ_Ì__.'Founding Faith' is an excellent book about an important subject: the inescapableÌ_Ì_̨but manageableÌ_Ì_̨intersection of religious belief and public life. With a grasp of history and an understanding of the exigencies of the moment, Waldman finds a middle ground between those who think of the Founders as apostles in powdered wigs and those who assert, equally inaccurately, that the Founders believed religion had no place in politics.'Ì_Ì_̱Newsweek'Well-wrought, well-written and well-reasonedÌ_Ì_̨a welcome infusion of calm good sense into a perennially controversial and relevant subject.'Ì_Ì_̱Kirkus'Founding Faith takes up two central questions about religion in early America. First, what did such Founding Fathers as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison usually believe? And second, how did it come about that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that 'Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'? The answers to these questions carry implications for our lives today, since at stake is the flash-point principle of the separation of church and state.' Ì_Ì_̱Washington PostÌ_Ì_ÌÂThere is a fierce custody battle going on out there for ownership of the Founding Fathers. Founding Faith strikes me as a major contribution to that debate, a sensible and sophisticated argument that the FoundersÌ_Ì_åÈ religious convictions defy our current categories.Ì_Ì_åÌ_Ì_̱Joseph Ellis, author of American CreationÌ_Ì_ÌÂSteven Waldman does a great job describing the nuances of the FoundersÌ_Ì_åÈ beliefs and the balances they struck, thus rescuing them from those on both sides who would oversimplify their ideas.Ì_Ì_å Ì_Ì_̱Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute and author of Benjamin Franklin: An American Life.Ì_Ì_ÌÂThis is a history every American should know, and Waldman masterfully tells it.Ì_Ì_åÌ_Ì_̱Jim Wallis, author of The Great AwakeningÌ_Ì_ÌÂSteven Waldman recovers the foundersÌ_Ì_åÈ true beliefs with an insightful and truly original argument. It will change the way you think about the separation of church and state.Ì_Ì_å Ì_Ì_̱George Stephanopoulos, chief Washington correspondent, ABC News, and anchor of This Week Ì_Ì_ÌÂSteve Waldman makes the strong case that the culture wars have distorted how and why we have religious freedom in America. Americans can be inspired by this storyÌ_Ì_̱the extraordinary birth story of freedom of religion.Ì_Ì_åÌ_Ì_̱William J. Bennett, author of America: The Last Best HopeÌ_Ì_ÌÂAn unusually well-balanced book on an unusually controversial subject. Not every reader will agree with Waldman that, of the Founding Fathers, James MadisonÌ_Ì_åÈs conclusions about religion and society were best. But all should be grateful for the way Waldman replaces myths with facts, clarifies the complexity in making the Founders speak to present-day problems, and allows the Founders who differed with Madison a full and sympathetic hearing. An exceptionally fair, well-researched, and insightful book.Ì_Ì_åÌ_Ì_̱Mark A. Noll, University of Notre Dame, author of AmericaÌ_Ì_åÈs God

[Ron Tenney · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Founding Faith to be a very engaging book developing arguments about the role of religion in America. Waldman limits his treatise to examining how five key founders approached religion in public life: Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and finally Madison. Not only does he show what they thought and what actions they took, but even how their own views changed over time.
This is a fast-paced book and I appreciated that most of the details were in the footnotes, making the text of the book more readable and interesting.
If there is a key struggle, it was how Virginia in the early days of the republic limited the religious life of the Baptists. And if there is a “hero” among the five mentioned above, it is clearly Madison.
Sorting out how Jefferson and Madison related to the “establishment of religion” and the separation of church and state was very interesting.
I liked the final chapter, where myths of the secular left and religious right are outlined, showing how taking specific quotes and applying it to make ones arguments may leave countervailing evidence on the chopping block. The speculation about how these founders might feel about religion in America today was fun to read and ponder.
One “myth” that was debunked is that the founders were mostly Deists. In the strictest sense of the word, none of them were actually Deists.
I feel that this is a worthwhile read if you are interested in Revolutionary history and its intersection with the establishment of religion in America.

[Spectre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Steven Waldman, one time CEO of 'Beliefnet.com', explores the impact of religion as the founders of the United States struggle to develop a national constitutional policy regarding government and religious freedom. A short summary might be that since there were so many varied interests and beliefs that these leaders, in order to agree, compromise, and pass a Constitution, decided to be relatively "silent" regarding federal religious laws leaving the subject to the states. That does not mean that those leaders were bereft of personal religious beliefs- far from it. The author examines the personal religious beliefs and public behaviors of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison and their influence on the ongoing public debate of today with emphasis on the 1st and 14th Amendments. My impression is that this book was well written, thorough, and a politically neutral historical study of a very important issue which is anything but neutral then or now.

[Patrick Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting look at the true complexities of what the Founding Fathers thought about freedom of religion and religion itself. A common sense break down taken from their letters and speeches showing that, as with any subject, things are much more complicated than usually portrayed.

Many subjects are explored including were the Founders Diests, who was really the driving force behind the protection for Freedom of Religion and why. Was the United States, in fact, set up as a Christian nation?

I found this book very interesting and easy to follow as it laid out thought by thought what the Founding Fathers we know of thought regarding the issue. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the like are given an in depth look. The Arthur cuts through the fallacies to the core of the Founders own writings to explain their thoughts as they wrote them.

Well worth a read.

[Kim Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars...the last couple of chapters weren't quite as interesting as the rest of the book. However, I found most of the book fascinating. Years ago I wanted to do a study of the religious views of the Founding Fathers. In this book, Waldman took care of that for me. One of the things that I really liked is that he examined both sides of the issue. He talked about things other historians have written to try to prove a certain viewpoint one way or the other and then talked about how they only used certain parts of the quote and left out a part that would disprove what they were trying to say. I came to understand the Fathers a lot better -- especially the religious views of Thomas Jefferson. Great book.

[Bob Peason · Rating 4 out of 5]

When someone suggested this book to me, I feared it was going to be yet another attempt at justifying either liberal or conservative opinions of "what the Founding Fathers intended when..."
It is not. The author takes each of the fathers one at a time and dissects their belief, and the resultant political actions. In his doing so, it becomes clear rapidly that trying to determine the will of the fathers as something unified is not realistic, as there was much variation amongst them. Moving to the present day, the author then examines the position of today's extremes, and the myths on which much of today's arguments are based.

A great read. Strongly recommended.

[Mark Seeley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating study on religious freedom and the first amendment. Keys in on James Madison and how the current phraseology of the first amendment was born out of compromise and key historical events. Well balanced and researched. Waldman does insightful work on each of the founding father's views on religion and faith.

I enjoyed reading this account after reading Fears of a Setting Sun by Dennis Rasumsen this year. Both books give a behind the scenes look at the development of our republic.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

How did a group of mostly devout men, many of them adherents of established religions supported by colonial governments, decide the federal government shouldn't favor any religion and should disentangle itself from religion as much as possible? A well written and researched answer to that question that is very relevant 200 years later.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid, evenhanded treatment of five of the Founding Fathers and how their ideas about religion influenced the Constitution and the early Republic. Waldman tries to dispel conservative and liberal myths about the First Amendment and in the process shows that the Founding Fathers disagreed among themselves about the role religion should play in public life.

[J.K. George · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here's a synopsis from the official review: With refreshing objectivity, Waldman narrates the real story of how our nation's Founders forged a new approach to religious liberty, a revolutionary formula that promoted faith . . . by leaving it alone.

I can't say it any better. This book should be required reading in American classrooms studying the development of the founding of the US.

[Nathan Marone]

Excellent.

Waldman does a good job of breaking down not only what the major founders thought about religious liberty (hint: they didn't all agree), but he also tracks the compromises they had to make and the political battles along the way.

The net conclusion here is that most of what we assert about the founding fathers in our rhetoric on religious liberty is misleading at best.

[Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting history account, but I was annoyed that the author only highlights the more liberal founding fathers. The author pretty much says-this is as good as it can get, let's just get along. Not my cup of tea.

[Becca Kirkman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a whole new approach to religious liberty, and it is a fascinating read. It frames the Founding Fathers ideas on religious freedom in a new light. I really learn so much from this book and every teacher of American History and civics should read this!

[Benjamin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting for the history, not so much with his conclusion.
When liberty is reduced to this or that special interest group, it ends in a loss of freedom, not a gain. We don’t need more religious freedom in this country, we need more freedom.