What do you think?
Rate this book
One Nation Under Man?: The Worldview War Between Christians And the Secular Left
America is at a cultural, political, legal, and religious fork in the road as revealed through the clear split between the blue and red states. In One Nation Under Man?, respected conservative Brannon Howse details the consequences of going to the left and rejecting the laws of nature and nature's God. Brannon makes the case that modern-day liberalism is based on a Secular Humanist worldview and true conservatism is based on the Christian worldview and the winner of America's worldview war will determine the fate of America's faith, family, freedoms, and future.
253 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2005
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 1, 2025
TLDR; dishonest individual with personal hate for anyone who doesn’t believe *exactly* the way he does, also a little cooky. Indeed I’d do minus a star for the author’s hatred.
Just the introduction is intellectually dishonest.
1) Invoking Godwin’s Law so soon. Tisk.
2) We came to the United States for freedom of religion, not forced religion. Don’t present the DoI as that the FF had the desire to maintain a nation under god. There is specific and primary documentation showing that EVEN THE CHRISTIAN SIGNERS didn’t want that.
3) Of your 50-whatever (bc this number changes within the book) FF over 40 were slave owners. Let’s not put them on a higher moral ground and fret about what they would think while maintaining only Christian’s have the mortal leg up on things 🙄
4) And while on the topic of morals, how dare you accuse non-Christians of wanting death but then disregard that they are the largest population who backs the death penalty?
5) “One Nation Under God” was an addition to the Pledge of Allegiance during a wartime era to invoke patriotism. Don’t confuse it with the start of the United States.
6) The court case about teaching Christianity? Settled with no money changing hands and the teacher resigning. Don’t speak too soon and pretend as though he was ONLY referencing the DoI. He was handing out pamphlets that pushed his specific form of Christianity.
Moving to the “core” of the book:
7) Yeah, the FF were religious buuuuuuut you fail to mention their envisioned principles of this country were freedom first. Even Jefferson pushed for separation of church and state once President. Yeah, include him in your list but conveniently fail to mention that little tidbit.
8) The author has the audacity to use the quote, “All men are created equal […]” discussing the integrity and intention of the FF regarding the DoI but would likely allow it to be up to interpretation when questioned about slavery. Or, “they were a product of their times” (but only in this regard?!?! Or do they strictly believe in the rights only belonging to men). If so, then it isn’t a living document and the author believes freedom is only for white men. Yeah, sell that.
9) Touching back into Godwin’s Law with his take that Hitler was an atheist. Let’s review a quote from Mein Kampf, “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Don’t even begin to argue that the FF meant creator as god but Hitler was referring to a non-god. Cherry picking at its worst.
10) Did this man just equate a republic as having to be a Christian republic? Please note who first presented the idea of a republic…hint, it was before Christianity.
11) Laws were reflective of Christianity until 1920? What? Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion besides the use of bitter waters (used to induce one) but if it did those were legal in some regard until 1910. Also, the law didn’t condone stoning a wife to death.
12) Pg 51. “Of the delegates that attended the CC In Philadelphia in 1787, only 39 out of the 55 signed the Constitution.” Could that be that at least 13 of those men died before 1987?!? What a prick for trying to play this statistic!
13) 10 years after his book the congressional make up was basically 97% religious with 92% being Christian. CHRISTIANS are making up the law, not secular people…don’t blame the “secular humanists” for making laws.
14) In this book atheism is simultaneously a religion and not a religion. Depending on what stance will benefit the author’s current point. Yuck.
15) Jesus was a socialist by all actions (befriending the poor, sick, corrupt, and prostitutes, giving up possessions to help others, not to mention…not judging), this author DOES NOT stand for the New Testament. In fact, he sounds like he stands for the opposite of Jesus’ teachings.
16) Author conflates ideas due to lack of understanding or intentional misdirection.
17) Author doesn’t understand the definition of atheism.
18) This person does not agree with mutations being beneficial. Yes, you uneducated person…mutations are not necessarily beneficial to YOU. They are beneficial to the organism FOR SURVIVAL. Please look at mutations for diseases. That’s a current day example. They mutate because the host has built an immunity. (Honestly, the dishonest nature of this author is used to take advantage of those who are uninformed or gullible).
18) This man states, in his non-same sex argument, “[…] two or more spouses, or the […] wife of another person”. The Bible detector said that was a lie. (And let’s not discuss sex with daughters…) pg.172
19) Oh please, the Bible doesn’t call homosexuality an abomination. The translation relates to sex with male children as an abomination. Look it up.
20) And this arrogant man goes on to define religion by giving half definitions. Go ahead and refer to pg 175 on the definition of belief and review the *actual definitions concerning religion. Goodness this guy is a money grabbing charlatan!
Ok. Almost to the end of this dumpster fire and I know it’s already a TLDR. Will save you the energy and do the whole TLDR thing at top. Anyway. This author is horrible and hates people…unlike Jesus.
Final thought. This guy is a huge asshole.
Just the introduction is intellectually dishonest.
1) Invoking Godwin’s Law so soon. Tisk.
2) We came to the United States for freedom of religion, not forced religion. Don’t present the DoI as that the FF had the desire to maintain a nation under god. There is specific and primary documentation showing that EVEN THE CHRISTIAN SIGNERS didn’t want that.
3) Of your 50-whatever (bc this number changes within the book) FF over 40 were slave owners. Let’s not put them on a higher moral ground and fret about what they would think while maintaining only Christian’s have the mortal leg up on things 🙄
4) And while on the topic of morals, how dare you accuse non-Christians of wanting death but then disregard that they are the largest population who backs the death penalty?
5) “One Nation Under God” was an addition to the Pledge of Allegiance during a wartime era to invoke patriotism. Don’t confuse it with the start of the United States.
6) The court case about teaching Christianity? Settled with no money changing hands and the teacher resigning. Don’t speak too soon and pretend as though he was ONLY referencing the DoI. He was handing out pamphlets that pushed his specific form of Christianity.
Moving to the “core” of the book:
7) Yeah, the FF were religious buuuuuuut you fail to mention their envisioned principles of this country were freedom first. Even Jefferson pushed for separation of church and state once President. Yeah, include him in your list but conveniently fail to mention that little tidbit.
8) The author has the audacity to use the quote, “All men are created equal […]” discussing the integrity and intention of the FF regarding the DoI but would likely allow it to be up to interpretation when questioned about slavery. Or, “they were a product of their times” (but only in this regard?!?! Or do they strictly believe in the rights only belonging to men). If so, then it isn’t a living document and the author believes freedom is only for white men. Yeah, sell that.
9) Touching back into Godwin’s Law with his take that Hitler was an atheist. Let’s review a quote from Mein Kampf, “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Don’t even begin to argue that the FF meant creator as god but Hitler was referring to a non-god. Cherry picking at its worst.
10) Did this man just equate a republic as having to be a Christian republic? Please note who first presented the idea of a republic…hint, it was before Christianity.
11) Laws were reflective of Christianity until 1920? What? Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion besides the use of bitter waters (used to induce one) but if it did those were legal in some regard until 1910. Also, the law didn’t condone stoning a wife to death.
12) Pg 51. “Of the delegates that attended the CC In Philadelphia in 1787, only 39 out of the 55 signed the Constitution.” Could that be that at least 13 of those men died before 1987?!? What a prick for trying to play this statistic!
13) 10 years after his book the congressional make up was basically 97% religious with 92% being Christian. CHRISTIANS are making up the law, not secular people…don’t blame the “secular humanists” for making laws.
14) In this book atheism is simultaneously a religion and not a religion. Depending on what stance will benefit the author’s current point. Yuck.
15) Jesus was a socialist by all actions (befriending the poor, sick, corrupt, and prostitutes, giving up possessions to help others, not to mention…not judging), this author DOES NOT stand for the New Testament. In fact, he sounds like he stands for the opposite of Jesus’ teachings.
16) Author conflates ideas due to lack of understanding or intentional misdirection.
17) Author doesn’t understand the definition of atheism.
18) This person does not agree with mutations being beneficial. Yes, you uneducated person…mutations are not necessarily beneficial to YOU. They are beneficial to the organism FOR SURVIVAL. Please look at mutations for diseases. That’s a current day example. They mutate because the host has built an immunity. (Honestly, the dishonest nature of this author is used to take advantage of those who are uninformed or gullible).
18) This man states, in his non-same sex argument, “[…] two or more spouses, or the […] wife of another person”. The Bible detector said that was a lie. (And let’s not discuss sex with daughters…) pg.172
19) Oh please, the Bible doesn’t call homosexuality an abomination. The translation relates to sex with male children as an abomination. Look it up.
20) And this arrogant man goes on to define religion by giving half definitions. Go ahead and refer to pg 175 on the definition of belief and review the *actual definitions concerning religion. Goodness this guy is a money grabbing charlatan!
Ok. Almost to the end of this dumpster fire and I know it’s already a TLDR. Will save you the energy and do the whole TLDR thing at top. Anyway. This author is horrible and hates people…unlike Jesus.
Final thought. This guy is a huge asshole.
Read
June 19, 2020Howse is a clear writer. Here is the thematic division in the book: "At the heart of each worldview is the question of whether God is or is not. Christians start with the presuppositional worldview that God is alive and well and that God's moral law, which is a reflection of God's character and nature, is instilled in the laws of nature and engraved on the hearts and conscience of every person. Thus, it serves as the compass and foundation of all values, beliefs, ideas, and behavior. The secular Left begins with the presuppositional worldview that God does not exist or that He doesn't matter; and thus instead of maintaining values, beliefs, ideas, and behavior based on the moral law of God, they trust in the minds of men and women. The secular Left believes individuals create their own reality and their own standards, and conduct their lives accordingly" (p.13).
Read
December 9, 2007I need to re-read before I can give a review or rating.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews