The Myth of Christian America : What You Need to Know About the Separation of Church and State

Rating:
Summary: Through the Looking Glass
Review: The author of the book, Mark Whiten is the president of The Greater Houston Area Chapter of American United for Separation of Church and State (AU). The AU is a organization that borders on being a strict separationist group. However, Mr. Whiten in his book, portrays himself as a middle of the road seperationist, this false duality however bleeds through making one wonder why the façade.

The book starts off portraying the normal left wing reactionary attack on religion. He incites the ignorant by his rhetoric that religious nuts want to impose a theocracy on us. These wacko's try to achieve this by telling us that the United States of America was started by our founding fathers to create a Christian (theocratic) state. Unfortunately this is a straw man as even finally Mr. Whiten tacitly admits, most clearly, on page 86, the only 'Christian' group wanting to impose a theocracy are the Reconstructionist and this group is of minute proportions. So the actual question is what do most members of the mainstream religious right say about the United States and its founders. Well something like this:

"The Christian religion, though its moral and religious teachings and its cultural influences, was a significant personal influence upon the delegates to the constitutional convention of 1787, and thus indirectly upon the constitution they drafted."

That's it, that's those supposed fanatical religious right have to say about the subject. Oh by the way, that quote comes right out of the authors' mouth on page 35. You see he even admits it. The dirty truth that Mr. Whiten doesn't want let out is that the United States of America was founded just as Patrick Henry said

"America was not founded by religionist but by Christians. It was not founded upon religions but upon the gospel of Jesus Christ" Patrick Henry

The crux of the book seems to be the applauding of judicial revisionism that occurred in the 1940's regarding the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. For those who are unaware from when the constitution was written to the 1940's a total of 160 years the establishment clause had been interpreted in one way.

In the 1940's through a liberal activist supreme court they reinterpreted the constitution to mean the opposite of its plain reading and original intent. This broad range and seeping decision created tensions between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as the author has noted. Before this misinterpretation there was no tension and very little need for any judicial judgments on these matters. Now we have a quagmire of unclear rulings that hinder the free exercise clause while promoting the establishment clause.

What is interesting is this very fear was exactly what the first amendment was created to stop. It is also noteworthy that this issue is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was speaking about when he answered the Danbury Baptists in his infamous letter. So while Mr. Whiten pays lip service to his favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson he in effect works for the antithesis of what Thomas Jefferson wanted. Mr. Whitten views Thomas Jefferson and the panoply of his writings and works through the proverbial 'looking glass'.

The very amendment that is crucial to what makes America great has been weakened and the author is gleeful over this. I wonder if Mr. Whiten realizes that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are inexorably linked. As he and others try to impose limits on religion they are also imposing limits on our freedom of speech. Sorry Mr. Whiten, I would rather have this country guaranteeing freedom OF speech along with freedom OF religion. Your goal of freedom FROM religion will logically lead to the pernicious freedom FROM speech.

To sum up maybe we ought to reflect upon the sage advice of Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Rating:
Summary: Humanitarians
Review: The founding fathers were horrified by witch hangings conducted by Christian Puritans, and by atrocities committed by state-enforced Christian churches in Europe. The founding fathers were attracted to a deistic concept of God, a kinder, more humanitarian God than the jealous, cruel, vindictive God of the Bible. The founding fathers were well-read and had studied many religions. Washington was acquainted with Buddhists and with "Mohammetans", as he spelled it. In 1778 James Madison said to the Virginia Convention on Ratifying the Constitution: "Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest." Deists valued reason, science, knowledge, not religious superstitions.

Rating:
Summary: Our Founding Fathers Respected Reason
Review: This is just one more book that ridicules Christianity while establishing Secular Humanism as the official state religion.

Dr. Mark Whitten suggests that "Separation of Church and State" is a phrase not only found in the Constitution of the old Soviet state, the USSR, but that the First Amendment states that there should be no relationship between government and religion in America.

Dr. Whitton encourages the belief that a secular society is the best society for America. He seems to have a very deep seated anger against religion which appears to be the driving force behind the creation of this misinformed text.

This book will be well liked by those who want to take "In God We Trust" off our currency, and redefine the First and possibly even the Second Amendments of our Constitution.

For the Christian, this book is a good reference piece. You can easily site the values of Secularists and Humanists within these pages.

Bottom Line: Dr. Whitton wants to change America. He is an angry author who would like to modify the beliefs of Americans regarding their rights. He suggests that we need to debunk the concept that America is a Christian country, even though many Christians were involved in the founding of the United States, and in the writing of its Constitution. It seems as though Dr. Whitton places a great deal of faith in the ability of man and his ability to reason. Most Americans are religious and place their faith in God, and his abilities, not mere men.

Tracey Levin

Rating:
Summary: "Myth" makes its own myth
Review: Whitten deals very little with documents, court cases, and ordinances which clearly show that the framers valued and sought to foster religious moral principles as beneficial to the nation. The moral priciples of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. were influences recognized as beneficial by the framers. Whitten argues that the idea of "Christian America" is a myth, but does not define "Christian America" as the framers would have. The focus of "Christian America" is the major moral influence of Christianity upon the nation. For example, an avowed Christian, Benjamin Rush is quoted "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles..." Although these religions are wholly incompatible in their specific doctrines they do share moral priniciples superior in benefit to the governance of the nation than any produced by a subjective secular society.
Whitten makes the implication that the bugaboos of the Religious Right intend to make the case that America was a specifically "Christian Nation" to force its agenda on others. I don't think his assertion is accurate or well supported.
Whitten upholds the thinking of the Everson court regarding separation doctrine. He does accurately point out that excising religious expression from the public square is not the intent of "separation of church and state". The framers clear intent was that the federal government did not have the power to restrict the exercise of religion or to fund/favor a particular sect or denomination(or other religion) as England and other governments had done previously.
The current separtion doctrine of the Supreme Court is at odds with the Constitution and usurps the rights of States and individuals. Our secular ayatollahs now exercise power over religion never intended for them.