<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Refreshing, Accurate & Fair History of First Amendment
Review: I have to agree with the other reviewers here (like Jack Kessler below):
This is a book that should be read by BOTH pro-separationists and anti-separationists. Of all the books that I have read on the subject, this book was *refreshingly* honest, accurate and scholarly, not to mention, a rather enjoyable reading.
The author stays clear of attacking either pro-separationists or anti-separationists--I truly appreciated that. (Can I assume this man is a Christian, or at least a good man?) Its been awhile since I've read a book on this subject that was historically accurate and could be trusted because it does not come across as biased.
Even if I agreed with him for the most part, the author forced me to think about my own stance. As another reviewer stated, this man also addresses the issues and policies that are being debated about around the first amendment, some of which I did not understand as clearly until I read this book.
As the other reviewer here said, this book should be a *textbook* for everyone, because it shows some of the history that many of us Christians (on both ends of spectrum) don't know about.
The book even gave me a greater respect for our nation's founders, after learning about the issues they grappled with.
Of ALL the books on the subject, this is my favorite, and probably the only book that I would recommend as a MUST READ for people at both ends of the political spectrum! :)
Rating:
Summary: Excellent History, and also Law, and Policy... a must-read
Review: This book is the best on its subject which I have come across in a very long time -- after a fairly long course of reading books on US church-state relations over the years -- in history, law, policy...I came to Lambert now after wading through a score or so of recent books on this -- tracts, I'll call most of the others, because they were nearly all horribly-biased. This has been part of a personal project to explain, and defend, the extraordinary depth and richness of US religiosity to some overseas friends. Foreigners never do understand how we can have such strong religious activity and belief, here in the US, while at the same time we maintain a "wall of separation" between church and state. Lambert does an admirable job of explaining this -- and he does it fairly, with great balance, and with wonderful style in his writing. He has a point of view himself, but he does not let it become a bias -- anyone possessing any of the many opinions which exist, on these issues, can get much out of reading this book. Lambert is a master of the topical and well-timed historical anecdote: he weaves these together, gently, in an entertaining and informative account of the US Colonial record on the difficulties of accommodating "varieties of religious experience". But he also has a keen historian's eye for the value of generalizations. He confines his text very carefully to his chosen historical period, 1600-1800. But he is not at all afraid to draw out a universal theme, occasionally, from his account of what those little bands of English expatriates and descendants of same were doing, or thought they were doing, back then in their "13 colonies". So we get the intriguing suggestion that the world -- or at least the Western European and particularly the New World American British Colonies part of it, but not just that last -- was proceeding, during that period, from a religious politics dominated by the clergy to one governed by the individual -- and perhaps that, more than quarrels over belief, is what the fuss was all about... "The central question for the Founders had not been religion's role," he asserts, "Rather, they worried about religion's place, deciding in the end that it would fluorish more through persuasion... than through government coercion." (p. 206) And, along the same lines, Lambert gives us the suggestion -- this one heard in the French Revolution as well -- that more than a matter of doctrine the religious changes of the times were political, again, and more of a shift in power from Ministers to Lawyers -- "Lawyers, not clergymen, took the lead in challenging Parliament's new imperial policies..." (p. 210). So the US Revolution certainly changed US politics, but unlike the French the US Americans still were free, afterward, to believe whatever they wanted to believe in matters of religion. Lambert's "Introduction" ought to be mandatory reading for anyone interested in current issues in these areas. As already mentioned, the body of the book is devoted to careful, balanced, US Colonial history: interesting stories, intriguingly presented, but meticulously crafted so as not to become the sweeping over-generalizations and "moral lessons" so often presented in other literature on this subject. In his Introduction, however, Lambert is not afraid to take a shot at characterizing current controversies: and it is a very careful and balanced and complete one -- "This study looks at the cultural and political boundaries that circumscribed the Founders' decisions and actions," he warns in his Introduction (p. 8) -- his implication, at least, being that passionate controversies today have their "contexts" as well... "During the last two decades of the twentieth century and continuing into the twenty-first, Americans have engaged in a culture war... On one side of the debate are those who insist that America has been since its conception a 'Christian Nation'... They blame 'liberals' for not only turning their backs on the country's religious heritage but openly attaching those who embrace 'traditional' Christian values... these conservatives often conflate the planters -- such as the New England Puritans and the Chesapeake Anglicans -- and the Founders into one set of forefathers...", Lambert says. But in addition, "Partisans on the other side of the culture war also consult the nation's Founders for a 'usable past' of their own. They, too, tend to conflate the two sets of progenitors by making both the Founding and the Planting Fathers impassioned champions of a religious freedom that extended liberty of conscience to all..." The book presents a really interesting controversy, then: good history, and also invaluable ammunition for both sides in the current fight, hopefully for use in moderating their own extremist positions and coming to a better understanding -- an understanding of the necessities for change, if those exist, but also of the reasons for maintaining continuity, as those do too. In a time of White House "faith-based initiatives", and of Department of Justice "Moslem" roundups, and of Supreme Courts which grant certiorari to "Under God" cases, Lambert's book should be required reading -- not just for religion classes, but also for history classes and law classes and decision-makers, and for all members of the general public... who either do or do not love the US... There is a great deal of wisdom about what makes the US a strong and good place, in this book. Jack Kessler...
Rating: 
Summary: Christian Nation, Secular State
Review: This very good book is a concise history of church-state relations in Colonial and Revolutionary America from the early British settlements to the election of 1800. Lambert describes the nature of early religous establishments, the increasing diversification of American religion, the impact of the Enlightenment and radical Whig ideology, and the emergence of church-state separation after the Revolution. There will be little new in this book for scholars of this period but this is definitely the best overview I have seen on this very contentious topic. Aimed at a broad audience, The Founding Fathers is written well, organized well, and is objective.
Lambert comes to this subject from an interesting perspective. His prior major work has been on the history of 18th century evangelism and his is an expert on Colonial religous practice. He particularly stresses that most of the colonies were founded originally with established churches and that establishment crumbled under the pressures of religous diversification. By the mid-18th century, the colonies contained a remarkably diverse set of Protestant sects and even some Catholics. This religous diversity, some of which arose from immigration and some from separatist movements within established churches, placed great strains on established churches. The mid-century Great Awakening resulted in further diversification and undermined the authority of the parish system throughout the colonies. Around the same time, the Enlightenment, with its Deistic views, and radical Whig ideology, with its emphasis on individual liberty, were becoming increasingly influential in the Colonies. All these factors converged to form a widespread belief that individuals, not the state, should determine religous faith. Individual churches would have to compete for adherents in a marketplace of ideas without the support of the state. These ideas eventually culminated in the post-Revolutionary separation of Church and State in the Federal Constitution. Separationism was supported most strongly by a coalition of relatively secular political leaders, like most of the Founders, and Protestant dissenters whose churches had suffered discrimination under the established churches in several colonies. This coalition believed correctly that religion was best served by being separated from the state. This was truly a revolutionary development and the USA was the first polity to enact church-state separation. Indeed, a number of European states still have established churches and almost all of them preserve a constitutionally sanctioned special relationship with one church. Lambert concludes by discussing the Presidential election of 1800, which some Federalists and sectarians framed as a referendum on Jefferson's unfitness to be President because of his deist-unitarian beliefs. Lambert argues convincingly that the election of 1800 acted as a referendum of sorts not just on Jefferson but also on church-state separation. Perhaps the only significant defect of this book is that the conclusion leaves one with the impression that the Church-State separation was settled after the election of 1800. It was not, and some of the more unattractive subsequent aspects of our history are consequences of imperfect separation. The Federal separation of Church and State applied originally only to the actions of the Federal government, some states continued with established churches into the 19th century. More important, state and local political power became vehicles for religous bigotry, notably abuse of public school systems in ways that infringed the rights of minority religions. One of the reasons we have a large system of Catholic private education is that 19th century Protestants used public schools to harass Catholics. Lambert demonstrates nicely that separation was engendered by the religous diversity of 18th century America. We have even more religous diversity today and separation continues to be a guarantee of a vibrant religous culture.
The issue of Church-State separation continues to be very contentious. Since many partisans in this debate appeal to the Revolutionary period to support their points of view, writing in this field can be emotionally charged. Lambert has clearly written this book in an effort to provide a fair and dispassionate presentation of what actually happened. Reflecting a broad consensus of knowledgeable historians, he has succeeded, though his conclusions will not be palatable for many on the religous right.
Rating:
Summary: Good, Well-Balanced Review of religion & the Constitution
Review: What a well-balanced review of how religion started in the colonies. I believe this is a fair assessment although it contradicts an anti-religious & pro-religious viewpoint. I am a christian and was surprised to learn the religious community's attempt to oppose Thomas Jefferson's election to President in 1800. In fact, based upon what you hear from the religious right, all our Founding Fathers were christians and never considered a separation of church and state. This text, as I noted earlier, contradicts this notion. Being a christian I would prefer a christian president but no litmus test was established so the Founding Fathers must not have thought it to be critical for the new republic. What was also interesting was the fact the northern states were more religiously conservative than the southern states (the fight to keep Jefferson from the White House came from preachers in the north). Based upon other texts I have read, it appears the south became a more religiously conservative haven after the civil war. The only minor dissapointment with the book was that I wanted the author to address the current church/state issues such as having the ten commandments in the courtroom and prayer in public schools. I of course support the prayer and ten commandment issues. The author could have addressed whether the Foundng Fathers would have supported these notions also. The author could have at least took a position on what the Founders would have wanted. He did indicate whether the favorable tax status of religious institutions violated the 1st ammendment. Again, the text provided a fair protrayal of the environment in our early years but could have done more to project what the Founders would have done today, in today's environment, with the current church/state issues.
Rating:
Summary: Good, Well-Balanced Review of religion & the Constitution
Review: What a well-balanced review of how religion started in the colonies. I believe this is a fair assessment although it contradicts an anti-religious & pro-religious viewpoint. I am a christian and was surprised to learn the religious community's attempt to oppose Thomas Jefferson's election to President in 1800. In fact, based upon what you hear from the religious right, all our Founding Fathers were christians and never considered a separation of church and state. This text, as I noted earlier, contradicts this notion. Being a christian I would prefer a christian president but no litmus test was established so the Founding Fathers must not have thought it to be critical for the new republic. What was also interesting was the fact the northern states were more religiously conservative than the southern states (the fight to keep Jefferson from the White House came from preachers in the north). Based upon other texts I have read, it appears the south became a more religiously conservative haven after the civil war. The only minor dissapointment with the book was that I wanted the author to address the current church/state issues such as having the ten commandments in the courtroom and prayer in public schools. I of course support the prayer and ten commandment issues. The author could have addressed whether the Foundng Fathers would have supported these notions also. The author could have at least took a position on what the Founders would have wanted. He did indicate whether the favorable tax status of religious institutions violated the 1st ammendment. Again, the text provided a fair protrayal of the environment in our early years but could have done more to project what the Founders would have done today, in today's environment, with the current church/state issues.
<< 1 >>
|
