Though you are likely to find this book shelved in the history section of your local library or book seller, this one is not so much a history as an essay expounding the author's vision of a concept of "public religion" rooted in beliefs first put forward by the Founding Fathers. His is a vision of a broad-minded religiosity with room for all faiths, including the most fundamentalist, but also with room for those with no faith at all. This book is an author's plea for mutual respect and understanding in our sharply divided age.

Much history does appear in the book, but (as is usually the case when the author has a point to promot) only the side of history that makes the author's case is presented. It is not complete. I cannot fault what is included as innacurate. For example, he correctly points out that the writers of the Constitution were neither founding a Christian nation as some fundamentalists would have it, nor were they the secularists many of my fellow liberals would like to believe. However, history that wavers from the author's point is not included.

As a plea for reason and mutual understanding I applaud the effort. However, I doubt the appeal of his concept of public religion to anyone on either extreme of our modern debate. I'll not presume to speak for the fundamentalists. Let them speak for themselves. I can speak for many secularists. His proposal is flawedd. The author's concept of public religion is meant to include the nonbeliever and yet still include public professions of faith. That's as about a possible as blending oil with water.
A more inclusibe proposal would have been one that let's both believer and nonbeliever alike participate while expressing only what he or she actually believes.

Still, it's nice to see somebody making a well-reasoned effort at finding common ground.