God on Trial: Dispatches from America's Religious Battlefields

by Peter Irons

A detailed examination of five recent landmark court battles over the separation of church and state offers coverage of the cases from both sides, from the 1989 challenge of a cross in a San Diego public park to the 2004 fight by parents who objected to the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board's decision to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics

384 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

The author of several books on the U.S. Supreme Court and constitutional litigation, Peter H. Irons is an American political activist, civil rights attorney, legal scholar, and Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego.

Reviews

[Jennie]

This book dives into some of the bigger court cases dwelling on the First Amendments Establishment Clause, more commonly known as, the separation of church and state. This issue is very dear to my heart so I read this book with great interest! In addition to details about each case, the motives behind both sides and the details on the entire case movement from court-to-court, the book also included personal reflections written by the main participants from both sides of each case.

I found this book to be a very well-balanced and fair documentary of these court cases, which can be a difficult task to achieve given the emotional subject. The personal reflections included at the end of each chapter provided amazing insight into the actions and reasons of all parties involved. Some made me irate and annoyed but most just helped me understand where, and in what shoes, the individual was standing in! These personal reflections actually helped in understanding the cases for me...it added a human perspective to all of the many times cold legal environment. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a good but unbiased overview of court cases dealing with the separation of church and state.

[Bill]

This is a well-written book by an author who is new to me. He takes the reader through a number of well known court cases that involve religion in America, basically struggling with the separation of church and state. In addition to simple descriptions of the motions, verdicts, appeals and the legal process, he describes the people involved and how these struggles have affected them. This should be worth reading by those who are interested in the law but also those who take their freedoms seriously.

[Brandon Atwood]

Enjoyable read. The dueling interviews were especially interesting. Because the book is a little dated, the perspective isn’t too far removed from the court cases which I found intriguing.

[Dallas Koehn]

God On Trial opens with one of the better recaps I’ve come across of the history of church-state separation and the origins of the First Amendment. Irons then nimbly fast-forwards us through the 19th and most of the 20th century with a tight focus on the evolving jurisprudence of our so-called “wall of separation.”

We're next treated to a bit of “in this corner...” as Irons introduces Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Jay Sekulow, chief council for the right-wing American Center for Law and Justice. (Sekulow has argued a number of landmark church-state cases before the Supreme Court, often successfully, but he’s probably better remembered now for being one of former President Trump’s favorite crony lawyers.) The section concludes with extensive first-person accounts from both Lynn and Sekulow, and I gotta tell you – it’s hard to dismiss or despise either one of them once they’re made so very human, however much one might dislike their ideologies or horrifying political choices.

God On Trial then deep-dives into a half-dozen major church-state cases from the past half-century and somehow manages to remain engaging and relevant at every point along the way. Part of what makes this particular text so fascinating is how effectively Irons humanizes the major players on all sides of the issues. His case summaries are balanced and detailed enough to satisfy those looking for scholarly treatment of the subjects, but retain a narrative quality that keeps them very much “real life” – real people, real emotions, and complicated motivations and iffy decision-making that tend to accompany both. If you're mostly looking for concise overviews of cases, this can be maddening, but as an exploration of what's really behind the proceedings, it's wonderful. He spends far more time talking about those arguing the case on each side than the judges deciding it or their official opinions.

Each chapter concludes with first-hand accounts from selected participants, clearly chosen with balanced perspectives in mind. While they certainly capture the foibles and biases of their subjects, they tend to erode any tendency on the part of the reader to demonize or oversimplify the “other side.” I went into this book generally familiar with most of the cases discussed and with some pretty strong opinions about a few of them. I didn’t necessarily change my mind about the constitutional questions addressed, but I couldn’t help but gain a little more sympathy and appreciation for those who fought for “the other side.”

In short, this is a legit and thoughtful study of the legal and social struggles related to church-state separation in the U.S. Despite being published nearly 15 years ago, it remains timely and relevant to ongoing debates and should be a go-to reference for anyone interested in the topic. Plus, and perhaps most importantly, it’s just a darn fine read.

[Sabrina]

This book helped me think about society in a different way. In fact, it left me asking myself more questions than it answered. I appreciated the attempt at neutrality by the other, but it is definitely slanted liberal, but not overly so. I appreciated being able to hear from someone on each side of the case. It helped me to see why they thought they were doing the right thing. Funny thing is that some of the people were so sure of their side, that they didn't even see the hate in their statements. (This was from both sides of the cases.) I don't know much sense this book will make to someone who has not studied rights in a Constitutional Law class. I think it's written so that someone who hasn't studied law, but just has an open mind, that they would enjoy the book.

[Brandon]

Having read parts of this for a law class, I decided it was time to go back and read the rest of it.

While I found it informative on the cases presented, I thought the writing was rather mundane. Luckily, I enjoy reading about this sort of thing and could handle the rather bland writing.

I was a little put off by the fact that the author said he used a lot of internet resources, but I find the book to be a good introduction into the subject rather than the be all and end all. He also said he didn't want to bog the reader down with footnotes, but as someone who picked this up to be more informed... I would have loved to see all the footnotes.

[Amber]

I read this book for my foundations in education class at UGA. The book discusses several large religious cases that have an impact in the classroom as well as many important landmarks. It was interesting to learn the history behind monuments and cases that impacted history. However, the chapters were very long and it would have probably been better to simply read segments of the book rather than the entire book. I think it is a good book for educators to have to know why certain laws have come into action and what is appropriate in the classroom today.

[Stephen]

An interesting read regarding religion and politics and how both have impacted our everyday lives. The author does a pretty good job of presenting unbiased information on how both sides fought for their cause and how many of the resulting decisions were made. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in politics or religion.

[Rachel Reece]

Amazing book--It was really eye opening for me, who grew up in a culture that mourns the decline of "America as a Christian nation". Many of the cases highlighted in this book demonstrate the horrible things "Christian" people have done in the name of God, even in the US in the last hundred years. A really fascinating history.

[Rachel]

So far I really love the fact that Irons includes the perspective from a major player at ghe end of his court summaries on both sides of each of the conflicts. May religious and ideological freedom reign! And may freedom of speech always be our most fundamental right. The trouble is when these two sets of ideals collide.

[(a)lyss(a)]

Mostly reading it to get through the course, but it's been an interesting read. I don't care to know so much about specific lawyers, but it's good to know where they're coming from and what these groups support.

[Bob]

At bottom this is a legal history of constitutional freedom of religion and establishment clause cases, but what could be a dry recitation takes on life as it is told in a conversational style with interviews with the litigants. This is a superb story both for lawyers and laymen.

[David]

Good mix of the legal and the personal, as Irons does well. But reading some of the statements of those in favor of mixing religion and government... as Atrios would say, "The stupid, it burns!"

[Q]

A good follow up to the book "40 Days and 40 Nights" --- focuses on major separation of church cases that went to the Supreme Court.

[Sarah]

Currently reading (and enjoying) for my Religious Studies seminar.

[Scott]

An interesting report of the people involved in recent First Amendment cases, and the issues as they saw them.

[David Melbie]

I like the way this book is put together; first, the author describes the case, then the opposing viewpoints have their say. A very riveting read indeed!

[Teakraken]

Extremely accessible history of the separation of church and state in the United States with discussion of landmark cases from recent times. I couldn't put it down.

[Rose]

Dry like toast. I was disappointed that he left out the "breathtaking inanity" quote from the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.