Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Random House Large Print (2006), Edition: 1st, 624 pages
Description
Author Meacham tells the human story of how the Founding Fathers viewed faith, and how they ultimately created a nation in which belief in God is a matter of choice. At a time when our country seems divided by extremism, this book draws on the past to offer a new perspective. Meacham re-creates the history of a nation grappling with religion and politics--from John Winthrop's "city on a hill" sermon to Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence; from a proposed nineteenth-century Christian Amendment to the Constitution to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s call for civil rights; from George Washington to Ronald Reagan. At the heart of the American experiment lies what Benjamin Franklin called "public religion," a God who invests all human beings with inalienable rights while protecting private religion from government interference. It is a great American balancing act, and it has served us well.--From publisher description.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member Atomicmutant
A nice rumination on the topic of faith in the public sphere throughout the history of this country. I found it to be absolutely well-balanced on the subject. If you're an atheist looking to get upset about the mingling of Church and State, you will come to understand the concept of a unique
The founding fathers, and other leaders since, have all wrestled with the conflation of public and private religious practice, and this book outlines that tension. Elastic though it is, America's concept of religion in the public sphere seems to hover around a center that, were both sides to calm down just a bit, might suffice for all of us.
Show More
American 'public religion' and how it has been applied throughout the countries' history. If you're a Christian Fundamentalist, you're going to have to admit that this is indeed a secular republic founded on non-religious principles. The founding fathers, and other leaders since, have all wrestled with the conflation of public and private religious practice, and this book outlines that tension. Elastic though it is, America's concept of religion in the public sphere seems to hover around a center that, were both sides to calm down just a bit, might suffice for all of us.
Show Less
LibraryThing member stevesmits
Meacham writes to clarify the place of religion in our political system. He posits that religion from the beginnings of our republic until today has played an important role in the cultural ethos that defines us as a society. In many ways, religious values anchor our civil relationships and bind us
While there is no doubt that the founding fathers were not secularists, it is also inarguably clear that they were determined to maintain a separation between religion and the public sphere. They had seen too many examples in history of the oppression that could result from sanction of particular religions by the state. They understood that the way maintain the allegiance of the people to the state was to favor no specific religion or even religious belief. The key to maintain civil ties was to expect tolerance of all manner of beliefs extending even to non-Christian beliefs and atheists. They believed that the rights of individuals derive from God, but a creator" God who bestowed on man "natural" rights, not those permitted by any government or any religious entity. In other words, God grants rights of liberty to people and such grant is not contingent on approval by any government or any religious institution. Hence, while religious belief were highly pertinent to our political compact, the endorsement of, or discrimination against, any religion by the state was not be be permitted.
His argument and reasoning is compelling. To say that religion and the values thereby expressed has no place in the ties that bind us is an error. Meachem gives many historical examples of how religion or religious beliefs influenced political outcomes. (Lincoln's considerations of God's involvement in the Civil War are most interesting, especially since Lincoln, clearly motivated by spiritual beliefs, belonged to no specific religious denomination.) Meacham makes a useful distinction between how religion, and the values it espouses, was, and continues to be, hugely influential is our polity, while making clear that overt endorsement of religions or religious tenants is beyond what the founders intended.
Show More
together in harmony and comity. Moreover, he contends, the boundary between religion and our political institutions is not as bright a line as is often portrayed by camps on both sides of the state v. religion ideological divide. He says that there is a "public" religion that heavily influenced the founding fathers and still today shapes our core values. The founding fathers certainly recognized that notions of Providential connections to and influence over us as a people greatly shaped who we are and how we should behave toward each other. That the founding fathers were believers is without question, although there was a diversity of thought about the nature of God and the divinity of Christ. Jefferson's deist views are illustrative of the range of thinking about the nature of God and religion.While there is no doubt that the founding fathers were not secularists, it is also inarguably clear that they were determined to maintain a separation between religion and the public sphere. They had seen too many examples in history of the oppression that could result from sanction of particular religions by the state. They understood that the way maintain the allegiance of the people to the state was to favor no specific religion or even religious belief. The key to maintain civil ties was to expect tolerance of all manner of beliefs extending even to non-Christian beliefs and atheists. They believed that the rights of individuals derive from God, but a creator" God who bestowed on man "natural" rights, not those permitted by any government or any religious entity. In other words, God grants rights of liberty to people and such grant is not contingent on approval by any government or any religious institution. Hence, while religious belief were highly pertinent to our political compact, the endorsement of, or discrimination against, any religion by the state was not be be permitted.
His argument and reasoning is compelling. To say that religion and the values thereby expressed has no place in the ties that bind us is an error. Meachem gives many historical examples of how religion or religious beliefs influenced political outcomes. (Lincoln's considerations of God's involvement in the Civil War are most interesting, especially since Lincoln, clearly motivated by spiritual beliefs, belonged to no specific religious denomination.) Meacham makes a useful distinction between how religion, and the values it espouses, was, and continues to be, hugely influential is our polity, while making clear that overt endorsement of religions or religious tenants is beyond what the founders intended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member WarnerToddHuston
A Guarded Recommendation -- verges on PC overload,
Jon Meacham didn't wear his own religion on his sleeve as he wrote "American Gospel - God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation" but he certainly shows his willingness to bow to PC requirements of a supposedly "balanced view" of religion
But, in the reading one gets a feeling of Meacham's schizophrenia over the issue. Perhaps, though, it is a schizophrenia we all feel over this complicated theme. Is this a "Christian nation" or is it secular? Certainly, Meacham takes pains to say that we are not a "Christian nation", but for every time he makes the disclaimer comes dozens of instances that would tend to make that disclaimer somewhat hollow.
I think my biggest complaint about Mr. Meacham is he seems to constantly compare today's mores with those of our pre-founding era settlers and Pilgrims and finding, naturally, those of our forbearers wanting. I know next to nothing about writer Meacham other than he works at Newsweek, but it seems he is not very informed about the various religious creeds of America circa the late 1600's in comparison with those of other western religions of the time and because of that he seems to misunderstand the freedom and liberty that was born here.
For instance, he snarks that it was inconsistent with Christian religious views for Mayflower Pilgrim and colony leader, William Bradford, to rejoice that a particularly profane and troublesome crew member on the ship died en-route to the New World. Meacham says, "It is not exactly Christian to see the death of a man... as a special work of God's providence..." this shows how Meacham misunderstands what Bradford was saying and how his faith, strict as it was, explained such incidents. It wasn't Bradford being "happy" over a death, it was Bradford sanguine that the man deserved his death because of his rejection of God and religion -- emphasis on man's failing, not Bradford's glee. Bradford would have been happier had the man realized his error and came to faith rather than die horribly on a ship at sea, but that the crewman's own misdeeds caused his untimely death was only an affirmation of the truth as far as Bradford and his people were concerned. Meacham takes this wholly out of context and applies modern morality to Bradford, curiously letting the profane and troublesome crewman off the hook entirely.
He also seems to harp on this mythical claim that the religious right somehow wants to reconstitute the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution into a religious document or to realize the United States as some sort of Biblical kingdom. In this he is bowing to the overheated nonsense from the secular humanists that have already succeeded in rewriting both history and the aforementioned documents to suit their own ends. Meacham's own overheated imagination leads him down this road even as his discoveries of just how infused with religion our nation's leaders and Founders were and are sort of makes his secular fears of religion groundless. The USA has always been able to combine the two ideals, secular government and religious expression, very well and this is one of the things that makes us so great a nation. After all, what American Christian leader has claimed that the USA should be run strictly via Biblical guidelines like some sort of Christian Taliban? Certainly some outspoken Christian leaders more strictly interpret the Bible than others, but all of them are merely advocating for their followers to drive the debate in the public square their own way, just as every other faction of America has a right to do and always has done. No, it is the anti-religious that is out of the ordinary in American history, not the religious, as Meacham so ably demonstrates.
Even though it seems that Meacham has no love for religion, his book is a great exposition of how intertwined religion was with the Founders and the ideas and philosophies they relied upon to create this great country. If you are religious, you will like the facts in this book, if, that is, you are easygoing enough to get past some of Meacham's snarkiness. I feel, though, that if you hate religion you will not like this book at all as it tends to prove claims of "no religion in America" utterly wrong. That he might tend to make both extremes unhappy might mean he has chosen a pretty good road to travel for his theme.
So, if you can live with some of the PCisms (like the centuries old canard of Thomas Jefferson's slave concubine), this book is filled with some wonderful expositions of just where and how religion "fit in" with the founding of the country. It also helps put various Christian sects and ideas into context for those unaware of how varied American religious experience is. Meacham also helpfully disproves the claims that "most of the Founders were Deists" that far too many half read Americans believe. In fact, some of the reviews on Amazon.com proves how too many people who read a book or two can misunderstand the whole question of the Founders and deism. (It is also quite funny that every review that says that the Founders were all Deists seems to have a preponderance of NEGATIVE votes! Perhaps these wayward reviewers might realize it is they, rather, that are ill informed?)
I recommend this book, even if I disagree with some of the author's conclusions or fears.
Jon Meacham didn't wear his own religion on his sleeve as he wrote "American Gospel - God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation" but he certainly shows his willingness to bow to PC requirements of a supposedly "balanced view" of religion
Show More
in America -- show religion but denigrate it as often as possible. But I salute him for trying to be less anti-religious than most. After reading the book you understand Meacham to say that religion is responsible for many good things, some bad, and that various Christian religions were seminal in the creation of the United States of America but that we, today, should rejoice that we can dispose of it all.But, in the reading one gets a feeling of Meacham's schizophrenia over the issue. Perhaps, though, it is a schizophrenia we all feel over this complicated theme. Is this a "Christian nation" or is it secular? Certainly, Meacham takes pains to say that we are not a "Christian nation", but for every time he makes the disclaimer comes dozens of instances that would tend to make that disclaimer somewhat hollow.
I think my biggest complaint about Mr. Meacham is he seems to constantly compare today's mores with those of our pre-founding era settlers and Pilgrims and finding, naturally, those of our forbearers wanting. I know next to nothing about writer Meacham other than he works at Newsweek, but it seems he is not very informed about the various religious creeds of America circa the late 1600's in comparison with those of other western religions of the time and because of that he seems to misunderstand the freedom and liberty that was born here.
For instance, he snarks that it was inconsistent with Christian religious views for Mayflower Pilgrim and colony leader, William Bradford, to rejoice that a particularly profane and troublesome crew member on the ship died en-route to the New World. Meacham says, "It is not exactly Christian to see the death of a man... as a special work of God's providence..." this shows how Meacham misunderstands what Bradford was saying and how his faith, strict as it was, explained such incidents. It wasn't Bradford being "happy" over a death, it was Bradford sanguine that the man deserved his death because of his rejection of God and religion -- emphasis on man's failing, not Bradford's glee. Bradford would have been happier had the man realized his error and came to faith rather than die horribly on a ship at sea, but that the crewman's own misdeeds caused his untimely death was only an affirmation of the truth as far as Bradford and his people were concerned. Meacham takes this wholly out of context and applies modern morality to Bradford, curiously letting the profane and troublesome crewman off the hook entirely.
He also seems to harp on this mythical claim that the religious right somehow wants to reconstitute the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution into a religious document or to realize the United States as some sort of Biblical kingdom. In this he is bowing to the overheated nonsense from the secular humanists that have already succeeded in rewriting both history and the aforementioned documents to suit their own ends. Meacham's own overheated imagination leads him down this road even as his discoveries of just how infused with religion our nation's leaders and Founders were and are sort of makes his secular fears of religion groundless. The USA has always been able to combine the two ideals, secular government and religious expression, very well and this is one of the things that makes us so great a nation. After all, what American Christian leader has claimed that the USA should be run strictly via Biblical guidelines like some sort of Christian Taliban? Certainly some outspoken Christian leaders more strictly interpret the Bible than others, but all of them are merely advocating for their followers to drive the debate in the public square their own way, just as every other faction of America has a right to do and always has done. No, it is the anti-religious that is out of the ordinary in American history, not the religious, as Meacham so ably demonstrates.
Even though it seems that Meacham has no love for religion, his book is a great exposition of how intertwined religion was with the Founders and the ideas and philosophies they relied upon to create this great country. If you are religious, you will like the facts in this book, if, that is, you are easygoing enough to get past some of Meacham's snarkiness. I feel, though, that if you hate religion you will not like this book at all as it tends to prove claims of "no religion in America" utterly wrong. That he might tend to make both extremes unhappy might mean he has chosen a pretty good road to travel for his theme.
So, if you can live with some of the PCisms (like the centuries old canard of Thomas Jefferson's slave concubine), this book is filled with some wonderful expositions of just where and how religion "fit in" with the founding of the country. It also helps put various Christian sects and ideas into context for those unaware of how varied American religious experience is. Meacham also helpfully disproves the claims that "most of the Founders were Deists" that far too many half read Americans believe. In fact, some of the reviews on Amazon.com proves how too many people who read a book or two can misunderstand the whole question of the Founders and deism. (It is also quite funny that every review that says that the Founders were all Deists seems to have a preponderance of NEGATIVE votes! Perhaps these wayward reviewers might realize it is they, rather, that are ill informed?)
I recommend this book, even if I disagree with some of the author's conclusions or fears.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JustMe869
very well written history of the faith of the men who have led our Nation, from Washington and Jefferson through Regan, and the delicate balance they have maintained, separating their personal beliefs from what Jon Meacham calls the “public religion”. It is a good companion piece to
Show More
Danforth’s Faith and Politics, which argues that religion should be a uniting rather than a dividing force in our public discourse. Show Less
LibraryThing member temsmail
The author of this book accepts John Dewy's "common religion," and eschews the very real faith of the American Founding Fathers. Just for one example, Geo. Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation clearly embraces standard orthodox doctrine, contrary to the ideas presenting G.W. as a mere theist.
Show More
This author's predisposition to secular religion colors and discolors his writing. Still, a good read. Show Less
LibraryThing member cmbohn
I went to a discussion group last year where we talked about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and religion. I wish I had read this book before going, because I would have been more able to defend my case. This book examines the true religious principles that guided the writing of the
The basic idea of the book is that religious freedom has always been important in the history of America. The Founding Fathers did not want to eliminate God, or Providence as they often referred to him, completely from public life, but that they felt it best to leave the matter as open as possible, so that each person could define that Providence however they wished. They also designed the Constitution and the Republic to make it more difficult for minorities to control the whole, but also so that they would also be protected.
Meacham does a great job in this book. I found it extremely readable, and certainly relevant. The book is not very long, but it has over 100 pages of appendix, including source notes, bibliography, and selected documents that he quotes in the book. The only thing it lacked was an index, which I would have appreciated.
Still, such a great book. Here is my favorite quote:
"Democracy is easy; republicanism is hard. Democracy is fueled by passion; republicanism is founded on moderation. Democracy is loud, raucous, disorderly; republicanism is quiet, cool, judicious--and that we still live in its light is the Founders' most wondrous deed."
Show More
Constitution.The basic idea of the book is that religious freedom has always been important in the history of America. The Founding Fathers did not want to eliminate God, or Providence as they often referred to him, completely from public life, but that they felt it best to leave the matter as open as possible, so that each person could define that Providence however they wished. They also designed the Constitution and the Republic to make it more difficult for minorities to control the whole, but also so that they would also be protected.
Meacham does a great job in this book. I found it extremely readable, and certainly relevant. The book is not very long, but it has over 100 pages of appendix, including source notes, bibliography, and selected documents that he quotes in the book. The only thing it lacked was an index, which I would have appreciated.
Still, such a great book. Here is my favorite quote:
"Democracy is easy; republicanism is hard. Democracy is fueled by passion; republicanism is founded on moderation. Democracy is loud, raucous, disorderly; republicanism is quiet, cool, judicious--and that we still live in its light is the Founders' most wondrous deed."
Show Less
LibraryThing member Simple.life
As a non-American, it has always been intriguing for me to grasp the understanding of "separation of church and state." The idea seems to mean differently for different people. Does it mean the church should not touch politics? Or, the state should leave religion alone? Or both? There is no doubt
Show More
that the founding fathers as well as many historic, key political figures found their Christian belief had guided their thoughts and values. I am glad to have read this book. Jon Meacham has made a compelling argument to link Christian belief and the American history. Show Less
LibraryThing member mramos
Jon Meacham, Newsweek managing editor, examines U.S. national traditions and the intention of the founding fathers when they created freedom of religion more then two centuries ago. Contends that faith and freedom are intractably linked. 'A nation will thrive only by cherishing freedom and
This book is well written and researched. It is also an easy read and a topic that merits much more discussion. But you must pay attention while reading. For you will see that Meacham is biased. And inconsistent when and where he feels the use of religion should or should not be used in government. He is uninformed on the make up of the Pre-Civil war south and he seems to gloss over the parts of this countries disfavor of Roman Catholicism. He is so set on his thesis that America is tolerant of religion he forgot these transgressions and did not address them. Yet still points out times where politics and religion have met throughout history where it meets his thesis, ignoring all those that do not.
In summation this author is far from objective. And seems to have a preconceived desire to convince us his thesis is correct at any cost. Meacham uses insinuation, omission of opposing points of view or more importantly: opposing facts, broad generalization, attempts at impugning the morality of the Founders and colonists, and a glaring failure to account for etymology all run rampant through out this book. At the end of the book he states, "In choosing to explore the connections between religion and public life," ...which he does explore as long as it supports the thesis he has put forth. On page 397 and 398 he states; "In a way the genesis of this book can be traced back nearly twenty years, when Herbert Wentz introduced me to Robert Bellah's idea of civil religion," Which tells us he already had preconceived idea of this book and how he would defend them regardless of historical evidence. Meacham finds "public religion" good when he likes a person's views and bad when he doesn't. His retelling of history may soothe some secularists, but it is not likely to calm some religious believers' fears. Tolerance runs one direction. Though the author is biased and does not have a deep knowledge on the subject I still will give him three stars for getting the discussion re-started.
Show More
protecting faith.' This book is well written and researched. It is also an easy read and a topic that merits much more discussion. But you must pay attention while reading. For you will see that Meacham is biased. And inconsistent when and where he feels the use of religion should or should not be used in government. He is uninformed on the make up of the Pre-Civil war south and he seems to gloss over the parts of this countries disfavor of Roman Catholicism. He is so set on his thesis that America is tolerant of religion he forgot these transgressions and did not address them. Yet still points out times where politics and religion have met throughout history where it meets his thesis, ignoring all those that do not.
In summation this author is far from objective. And seems to have a preconceived desire to convince us his thesis is correct at any cost. Meacham uses insinuation, omission of opposing points of view or more importantly: opposing facts, broad generalization, attempts at impugning the morality of the Founders and colonists, and a glaring failure to account for etymology all run rampant through out this book. At the end of the book he states, "In choosing to explore the connections between religion and public life," ...which he does explore as long as it supports the thesis he has put forth. On page 397 and 398 he states; "In a way the genesis of this book can be traced back nearly twenty years, when Herbert Wentz introduced me to Robert Bellah's idea of civil religion," Which tells us he already had preconceived idea of this book and how he would defend them regardless of historical evidence. Meacham finds "public religion" good when he likes a person's views and bad when he doesn't. His retelling of history may soothe some secularists, but it is not likely to calm some religious believers' fears. Tolerance runs one direction. Though the author is biased and does not have a deep knowledge on the subject I still will give him three stars for getting the discussion re-started.
Show Less
LibraryThing member PointedPundit
In his latest book, “American Gospel,” Jon Meacham provides an eloquent, yet at the same time, depressing look at the United States’ spiritual foundation.
This well-written book portrays how our Founding Fathers created a nation guided by faith, yet not controlled by it. To them, belief in God
At a time when our political system appears dominated by dimwits and charlatans, Meacham surveys the past for a perspective on how this nation has grappled with mixing religion with politics. Unlike today’s extremist views, the Founding Fathers wanted the country guided by what Benjamin Franklin called a “public religion.” God endowed all human being with inalienable rights and they should be free to worship Him without governmental interference. Neither today’s secular left nor “evangelical” right articulates this delicate balancing act.
From John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” and Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence to Martin Luther King’s civil rights campaign, the author shows how our leaders struggled to balance their personal religious convictions and its place in their public lives.
At a time when politicians seem more interested in sound bites, Meacham’s portrait shows how inspiring individuals can be when they sincerely struggle with their conscious to determine the religion’s proper place in their public life.
This book should be required reading for anyone in or aspiring to public office.
This well-written book portrays how our Founding Fathers created a nation guided by faith, yet not controlled by it. To them, belief in God
Show More
was a matter of choice.At a time when our political system appears dominated by dimwits and charlatans, Meacham surveys the past for a perspective on how this nation has grappled with mixing religion with politics. Unlike today’s extremist views, the Founding Fathers wanted the country guided by what Benjamin Franklin called a “public religion.” God endowed all human being with inalienable rights and they should be free to worship Him without governmental interference. Neither today’s secular left nor “evangelical” right articulates this delicate balancing act.
From John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” and Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence to Martin Luther King’s civil rights campaign, the author shows how our leaders struggled to balance their personal religious convictions and its place in their public lives.
At a time when politicians seem more interested in sound bites, Meacham’s portrait shows how inspiring individuals can be when they sincerely struggle with their conscious to determine the religion’s proper place in their public life.
This book should be required reading for anyone in or aspiring to public office.
Show Less
LibraryThing member the_hag
It was a semi-interesting read…but coming in at 250 page for 200 years of history??? I think perhaps it’s a bit short in that respect. He made some interesting points and overall it was enjoyable, if a bit bland and lacking in a real “point” or conclusion. I’m glad I got this one from the
Show More
library, because it’s not really one I would want to have for my personal library and I can’t really see myself needing to refer to it again in the future, or even really recommending it to others. I give it a B-, an interesting summary but it has no real depth. Show Less
LibraryThing member Bonpetitepoodle
a good read for the lay person
LibraryThing member jscape2000
Brisk, informative and opinionated non-fiction.
Subjects
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2006 (1st edition)
ISBN
0739326678 / 9780739326671