Rating: 
Summary: A great contribution to the study of American history
Review: It could be that Susan Jacoby's latest book may finally put an end to the ignorance that most Americans exhibit about the role that secularism has played in the social, cultural, and political development of the United States. It is a fact that Americans are woefully deficient when it comes to knowledge about American history, a lack which permits those with specific socio-political agendas to perpetuate distortions about the part that secularism and religion played in the founding of this nation and continue to play in its evolution. This matter is especially crucial now because of the current issues surrounding church-state separation, including an important case soon to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.The importance of Jacoby's book is that it fills a gap which for too long has existed in the study and presentation of American history. It is often forgotten (or ignored?) that America's evolution was influenced by two great traditions, not just one as so many cultural commentators have insisted. The Judaic-Christian religious tradition certainly had a major impact on the development of American moral thinking and practice. But, equally important if not more so, the pagan or secular Greco-Roman tradition had its impact on the formation of American political institutions and the development of American jurisprudence. Many books have been written about the Judaic-Christian contributions (regrettably, some historically inaccurate), but the pagan-secular contributions have tended to be either forgotten or ignored and this problem has now been corrected by Jacoby's treatise. Generally speaking, "Freethinkers" is an historical survey of secularist thought and influence in American history with a special emphasis on the most important actors in this unfolding drama. Included are such luminaries as Thomas Paine, who is just now making a comeback into the American consciousness, Thomas Jefferson, a president who by all accounts seems to be more secular than religious and appears to be a true theological Deist contrary to the declarations of many fundamentalist Christians, Abraham Lincoln, a president who was skeptical of Christianity and denied its divine origins, and Robert Ingersoll, an American philosopher whose absence from virtually all textbooks of American history is a national disgrace. I must commend Jacoby for bringing Robert Green Ingersoll back into the limelight. Known in the latter half of the 19th century as that "Great Agnostic," Ingersoll was truly one of the philosophical giants of that period. He has been largely ignored throughout the 20th century. During my entire academic studies in philosophy, no mention was ever made of him. I took a graduate course in American philosophy without hearing his name. I took undergraduate courses in various periods of American history and never heard a reference to him. I discovered this once-influential philosopher later when I was doing some independent work in American social thought. My reaction, after studying and reading him, was how shameful it is that this man was not better known to students today. Thanks to Jacoby for bringing him back into his rightful place in the American story. This is just one of the many highlights of her book. One of the basic questions which is continually debated asks "Is America a Christian nation." The secularists say "No." What has come to be called the "Christian Right" says "Yes." Now, both can't be correct within the same context. Jacoby argues that America was founded as a secular government. I suggest she is correct regarding this point. The Christian Right argues that America is a Christian nation. I suggest they are correct regarding this point. What appears at first glance to be a contradiction is not once we become aware of the context. Statistically, most Americans consider themselves to be Christians and, in this sense, America is a Christian nation. However, our government was never set up as a "Christian government," a theocracy where the church, of whatever denomination, would dominate socio-political policy. As Jacoby rightly points out, the Constitution never mentions God and, furthermore, the Declaration of Independence mentions only "nature's God," a reference that can be reasonably interpreted as Deistic. Jacoby covers much territory in her book beginning with the intense debate over the omission of God from the Constitution and moving from 19th century abolitionism and suffragism through the 20th century's civil liberties, civil rights, and feminist movements. She includes the major characters involved in secular activism, like those already mentioned above, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Clarence Darrow and others whose importance to secularist philosophy are finally acknowledged. She offers a powerful defense of the secularist heritage that gave Americans a government founded not on religious authority but on human reason. If I have a negative criticism, it is this: I don't think Jacoby presents a clear characterization of moral relativism; I suspect she has not really thought out all the implications of that concept. The secularists are wrong because they deny any objective moral criteria and promote moral judgments within a political context, while the religionists are wrong because they promote a revelation-based moral absolutism applied to all human acts. The concept of moral relativism is generally misunderstood, even among intellectuals, and objective criteria for determining ethical principles is usually confused with some sort of moral absolutism. The beauty and truth of Aristotle's "Ethics," for instance, lies precisely in the fact that it is neither absolutist nor relativist, but provides an objective foundation for evaluating human acts. I do hope that this book is widely read by a public whose knowledge of American history is, unfortunately, dismal. This is a great introduction to a cultural influence which has been largely forgotten or ignored. It is a great addition to any course or study in American history which wants to present itself as truly comprehensive. I also recommend this book because it provides a counterbalance to a traditionally one-sided picture of how this great nation of ours came into being and evolved to bring more freedom and opportunity to more people than any other nation that has ever existed.
Rating:
Summary: Holy Great Agnostics America, its Secularism
Review: It was a great book. I started reading it on Good Friday of all days, and have been reading it since. It's about time someone wrote a book on the contributions of secularism. America's Christian fervor and religiuosness to them are due in part because the founding fathers realized a Government that endorses religion is a dead religion. And this country is proof of that since most are religiuos exiles. As for chapters of the book, as an Atheist who believes in Seperation of Church and State and the Darrow half of the Scopes trial, I didn't even know that I was in a predestined spot in the culture wars, as I think war and think bloodshed, not metaphor. This book explained more in depth of what they mean by culture wars, red state blue state. All those words that are languages of their own. This book also laid out who was Robert Ingersoll and resurrected his place in history. Very well thought out and very much needed in the age of Bush.
Rating: 
Summary: American Atheist
Review: Ms Jacoby points out that my title is not a contradiction. She has written an important book about the role of the unreligious in the history of our nation from pre-Revolutionary to current times. It is both documentary and polemicm frequently preachy and engaging in many of the practices denounced in the book - invalid analogies, exaggeration, mixing (non)religion and politics and group or character assassination.
More importantly, she cannot explain why secularists (and I am one) are still a tiny minority despite their clearly superior rational "beliefs". Bertrand Russell opined, "A God can only be replaced by another God" and, as Jacoby points out, secularism by its very nature is not orthodox and does not have a single creed unlike Baptists, Mormons or Catholics. She reviews the history of "In God We Trust", the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the many attempts to insert religious references in our Constitution. The real heart of the story is the personalities - from Thomas Paine and the Founding Fathers to Robert Ingersoll (a personal hero), Darrow, Susan B Anthony and the (in)famous Madalyn Murray O'Hair. In her description of "activist" issues, she overstates the influence of secularists. The Civil Rights, Slavery, Prohibition and Animal Rights movements had small numbers of secularists but the overwhelmingly support was religious-based, not surprising when one compares the number of believers and non-believers.
She purposefully linked secularism with leftist politics, an approach I find distasteful in that it seems to lead to support/admiration for regimes in which individual rights are not paramount - Cuba, "Palestine", Vietnam and any number of African states run by good squads. She is scornful of "anti-communists" with its ties to religion. She does note that in no other country could one protest for one's rights as is done here and, we are reminded, we can thank our secular Constitution for that privelge.
The role of Jews and Judaism in secularism was enlightening. The chapter on Evolution was the best, the last one on those pesky "right-wing Christians" (a phrase repeated more often than an NPR broadcast) is the worst due to its seemingly pointless invective. She concludes with an appeal: Sse "Freethinkers" as the all-encompassing word for atheist or skeptic. Unfortunately, UK scientist Richard Dawkins has already suggetst the absurd term, "Bright". Neither is going to catch on any time soon.
Rating:
Summary: An Antidote For Our Irrational Times
Review: Ms. Jacoby has written a definitive history of secularism in America that along with Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" serves as a re-introduction to the REAL history of America from the hearts and minds of those that never sought simple answers for life's complex questions by seeking refuge in unquestioning belief systems. Rather we have a history of those men and woman that knew human conditions need constructive human responses in building a better world for all. History is said to be defined by the victors, thus this is not a re-telling of deeds by dead rich white men who populate most books of American history. In Freethinkers, we find the life, work and deeds of fellow Americans that are often ignored or misrepresented by mainstream books of history. These are people that did not accept the status quo as the divine order of things, rather they continued to carry that revolutionary spark that makes America & Americans a unique people in their quest for a better life for all citizens and not a selected few. This is a heritage we can be proud of, American's that often sought a crude vigor to polished banality. In examining mainstream history we often find the divine right of European potentates translated into America for a white male dominated monied class floating like precious cream at the top of American society supported by those that labor below. Religion has and always will be a tool for complicity and submission in the social contract. For all heterodox Americans from Deist to Humanist, this book will put a spring in your step and a lump in your throat by the examples of the nobility of the those that came before us in their efforts to show that the "Angels of our better nature" are within each one of us here and now. Depending upon no outside authority to embellish or enhance. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Superb history of a much maligned group
Review: Much of the religious freedom churchgoing U.S. citizens take for granted
would not exist were it not for the struggle of freethinkers - atheists,
agnostics, deists, rationalists, humanists - to give and keep the U.S. government secular.
The evangelical Christians and Catholics who now work to dissolve the walls
between church and state find it convenient to forget how the barrier they
despise once protected them from rich and politically powerful sects when
they were few in number, poor, and unwanted. Even more, they forget how
forbearers of the modern freethinkers they condemn so easily and hate so
much, men such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Thomas Paine,
struggled and sometimes suffered to promote and defend the radical notion of
a government neutral in religion which respects everyone by not elevating
one belief above another. If you are a non-religious American, this gift to the world is your
heritage. It is one to be proud of.
Rating: 
Summary: Lies and more lies!
Review: Our founding Fathers clearly intended this nation to be a Christian nation -- they did not intend to force people to attend church, but neither did they envision the day their words would be twisted and perverted to force God out of public life.
A day of judgement is coming on America unless we turn our hearts back to God. With God's great love, it's not too late!
Rating:
Summary: A History Needs to be Built. This is a Good Cornerstone
Review: Susan Jacoby's book, "Freethinkers" is a superb cornerstone needed to build a better history of America's secular traditions and strengths. Jacoby traces the Freethinking movement (which to her consists of individuals who are generally not motivated by a deity in their personal and political decisionmaking and who work to maintain a government aloof from questions regarding religion) from the nation's founding up to modern times. The author provides a link from our founders, including Thomas Paine, through Robert Ingersoll--one of the greatest spokesperson on living a life unfettered from dogma--to the modern era. There is much to commend in this book: she shows how Freethinkers were significant contributors to the anti-slavery and women's movements. Her sections on Ingersoll, the 20th century struggle for secular public schools, and the 60's civil rights movement are also excellent. Although Jacoby is, like this reader, a "godless infidel", I appreciated her determination to avoid polemics and to provide balance to her subjects. She also provides some criticisms of the tactics used by modern secularists who rely upon court decisions but tend to ignore the court of public opinion. The contributors to our secular and democratic state, and the powerful history of Humanists, atheists and agnostics in our country, cannot be condensed into one book, and I hope Jacoby's efforts inspire others to take up her narrative. We need to learn more about the "forty-eighters" who came to America after the failed European 19th century revolutions, and who contributed to the Union army and to our society. And selfishly perhaps, I would have appreciated if Susan Jacoby's book had more about Felix Adler and the Ethical Culture Movement, a movement that blossomed in the era of Freethought and expanded to Austria and Germany. While Ethical Societies thrive to this day in the United States, they could not survive Nazi oppression in Europe. She also does not discuss the Humanist Manifesto or Freethought contribution to the Arts. I recommend this book to all those interested in our history, and in the history of religion in the United States. I also hope many will be inspired to write more on our missing history, so that all may learn of these nearly forgotten heroes.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting story, incoherent ideas.
Review: Susan Jacoby's history of "freethinkers" is well-written, reasonably fair, and informative, if a somewhat meandering and an ultimately incoherent read of anti-religious history in America. As a Christian, I seldom found the tone so shrill, or comments so unreasonable. Above all, she seemed to be saying, "Hey, we secularists have contributed to American democracy, too!" Fair enough; so you have.
Jacoby's description of Lincoln seemed balanced and thoughtful. I was glad to learn more about Robert Ingersoll, but the unfunny quips Jacoby quoted hardly justified the comparison with Voltaire. Jacoby did not mediate whatever depth he may have had to this reader, anyway.
Whether to sound sensational, or because she is unable to view contemporaries with as much dispassion as the ancients, Jacoby's take on modern Christians, especially those who lean Republican, seemed the least fair part of the book. She accused Justice Antonin Scalia of extreme "contempt for democracy" because he thinks the Constitution is a "dead" or rather "enduring" document and means no more and no less than what its authors meant to convey. If so, and if in early America horse thiefs were subject to capital punishment, by Scalia's reasoning "courts should be free to hand down death sentences for grand theft auto." But that is an abysmal misreading of Scalia's argument. Scalia went on to point out that "there is plenty of room within this system for evolving standards," arguing only that the instrument of change should be elected representatives, not judges. In fact, Scalia was precisely trying to protect the right of the people to make laws. That, of course, is why he abhors Roe vs. Wade. It is truly Orwellian to accuse those who think we should vote on an issue of "contempt for democracy," as opposed to those who think the Supreme Court should decide it all for us.
Jacoby's book is undermined by two even more critical errors, one political, the other philosophical, both centered on confusion about the word "freethinker."
Freethinkers are not just atheists, but liberal Christians, deists, unitarians, and others who share "a rationalist approach to fundamental questions of earthly existence." But Soviet style communists do not qualify. So apparently being unconstrained by dogmas in one's thought is the key. But then Jacoby adds that a free-thinker finds no evidence of miracles, and does not believe in the resurrection. So now a freethinker must only come to conclusions in conformity with certain dogmas. What about someone who thinks freely, and concludes that some miracles happen, and the resurrection was one? Anyone who thinks that is not possible should read The Resurrection of the Son of God, by British historian N. T. Wright. So I find a fundamental confusion in the premise of this book.
Jacoby misunderstands the faith, Christianity, which is her foil most of the way, on two key points. First, she assumes that wholehearted Christians care nothing for separation of Church and State. In fact, thoughtful Christians would say it was Jesus' idea to make out separate checks to Caesar and God, and a darn good one, too. Secondly, and more vitally, she misdefines religion. "The scientific method itself, with its demand to 'Prove it,' discourages the leaps of faith in the unverifiable that are the essence of any religion." This concept of science is simplistic. The idea of faith is simply false, and has been eloquently denied by Christian apologists for two thousand years. But it is perhaps fitting that such errors should lie at the heart of a history of skepticism, since they have so often confused skeptical thinking about religion.
author, Jesus and the Religions of Man / christthetao@msn.com
Rating:
Summary: good intro to leading freethinkers
Review: The author does a fine job of introducing us to some of the most important freethinkers throughout U.S. history; people of courage who stood up to the superstitions of the day with honesty and a rational alternative. As the author points out, reason has consistently been under attack since the Enlightenment, and it's imperative that freethinkers stand their ground against the superstitious nonsense that continues to impede human progress.
Rating: 
Summary: Freethinkers: A Polemic Ripped From Its Context
Review: The book tells us more about Jacoby's 21st century world-view than the role of skepticism and secularism in America's history. This is a polemic disguised as history. There is no context to the book, as it makes no attempt to contrast secularism with the impressive contributions of religious figures and institutions to American life. I would love to read a review by a scholar of American Religious history. I don't see how any scholar of religious history - other than another fellow secularist - could make much of a defense of this book.
|
