The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness

There actually is no mention of God in the Constitution, and the only reference it makes to religion is in article 6 where it states that there shall be no religious test for political office. A current tragedy is that religious conservatives have, indeed, established informal religious tests of office through their "voting guides".

In developing the constitution men like Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison were strongly influenced by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke who believed that the function of Government was solely to keep the peace. While religious enthusiasts like to point out the section of the Declaration of Independence that states that our "Creator" endowed us with certain unalienable rights, they seem unable to thoroughly assess the meaning of the following words that state these rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are secular attributes of government, i.e. that the state should protect us, and our property, and keep us free. And that is exactly the role envisioned by our Founders. Government should not promote religious laws that place restriction on our basic freedoms. Government should not decide moral issues.

Jefferson and the others felt that when religion was involved in government it corrupted government and degraded religion. He felt it absurd that politicians should be the interpreters of the will of God. God, said Jefferson, needs no government officials to speak for Him.

Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison did not want religion mixed with politics, and this book provides us with an excellent exposition of their views. Many Christians were very upset with the "godless constitution" and founded various organizations that from 1863 to 1945 fought for an amendment that would provide a statement in the preamble "acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government..". They, fortunately, have never been successful.


A hard book to argue with   August 14, 2001
Kingdaddy (Bay Area, CA, USA)
30 out of 37 found this review helpful

Currently, we don't have an informed discussion of the wall of separation between religion and politics, between faith and law, in the media. Instead, we have shouting matches free of information that might help end some of the disputes.

Karmnick and Moore set out to provide a brief, readable primer on (1) what the Framers had in mind when they separated Church and State, (2) what thinkers or events informed their conclusions, and (3) what relevance all of this has to the current debates on school prayer, tax-exempt status for churches, and other issues.

Their argument is hard to argue with. The "no religious test for public office" clause (and the debate it generated) in the Constitution is their starting point for understanding what Madison, Jefferson, and others had on their minds when they wrote the core documents of American politics, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And there's a lot more critical background they discuss, such the Lockean view of the secular social contract between citizens and the government they create, and the religious arguments by people like Roger Williams and others in the 17th and 18th centuries against intermingling politics and religion. It's pretty clear what the Framers had in mind, and it was to keep religion and politics separate to the advantage of both.

By the way, Steven Tooley's rebuttals here on Amazon are completely disingenuous and hit not the core of the book's arguments, but peripheral matters. He misunderstands Locke, a man of profound faith who also felt that government was not sanctioned by God, but created by human beings to serve very specific purposes. And for a guy who complains about "ad homein" [sic] attacks, Tooley doesn't hesitate to make comments like, "Are these two professors trying to pull the wool over everyone eyes for a reason, or have they themselves been brainwashed?" Read the book (which contains a lot of quotes from primary sources, by the way) and decide for yourself.


1st Class overview of what the 1st Amendment is all about   January 9, 2001
16 out of 19 found this review helpful

This is not a conservative versus liberal book. It is a concise overview of the question of church state seperation under the First Amendment. Is there an absolute wall? If so, on what basis and why? The authors cover the history of the Amendment and the challenges to its interpretation by those with a theocratic bent and others who oppose political domination by religious majorities. This reader is a conservative voter who found the work well worth reading and sound in its arguments and conclusions. Those who favour liberty will find much on which they agree with the authors.


Great book, but not quite as good as...   July 19, 1999
12 out of 14 found this review helpful

...Why the Religious Right is Wrong About the Separation of Church and State, by Rob Boston. That book will arm you with more weapons to fight against right-wing religious extremists, who have tried to rewrite U.S. history and mislead people about religious liberty.


I have never been more proud to be an American   April 26, 1998
geot1@aol.com (Not Kyzyl, Tuva)
14 out of 17 found this review helpful

Well organized, superbly written, and short, this book conveys both the sweeping significance of the American revolution and the threat of the Religious Right better than any other I have seen. Its effectiveness is amplified by the evidence that the authors are supportive of a role for religion in society. Any "conservative" who is tempted by parochial school voucher proposals, any "liberal" who thinks America is just like other countries, any politician of any kind, and you too should read it.

The Constitution properly protects motherhood and apple pie, but not flags and school prayers, because the Founding Fathers learned that symbols cannot be substitutes for substance. Let's keep it that way.