What do you think?
Rate this book
Godless Citizens in a Godly Republic: Atheists in American Public Life
God occupies our nation’s consciousness, even defining to many what it means to be American. Nonbelievers have often had second-class legal status and have had to fight for their rights as citizens.
As R. Laurence Moore and Isaac Kramnick demonstrate in their sharp and convincing work, avowed atheists were derided since the founding of the nation. Even Thomas Paine fell into disfavor and his role as a patriot forgotten. Popular Republican Robert Ingersoll could not be elected in the nineteenth century due to his atheism, and the suffragette Elizabeth Cady Stanton was shunned when she questioned biblical precepts about women’s roles.
Moore and Kramnick lay out this fascinating history and the legal cases that have questioned religious supremacy. It took until 1961 for the Supreme Court to ban religious tests for state officials, despite Article 6 of the Constitution. Still, every one of the fifty states continues to have God in its constitution. The authors discuss these cases and more current ones, such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which address whether personal religious beliefs supersede secular ones.
In Godless Citizens in a Godly Republic, the authors also explore the dramatic rise of an "atheist awakening" and the role of organizations intent on holding the country to the secular principles it was founded upon.
As R. Laurence Moore and Isaac Kramnick demonstrate in their sharp and convincing work, avowed atheists were derided since the founding of the nation. Even Thomas Paine fell into disfavor and his role as a patriot forgotten. Popular Republican Robert Ingersoll could not be elected in the nineteenth century due to his atheism, and the suffragette Elizabeth Cady Stanton was shunned when she questioned biblical precepts about women’s roles.
Moore and Kramnick lay out this fascinating history and the legal cases that have questioned religious supremacy. It took until 1961 for the Supreme Court to ban religious tests for state officials, despite Article 6 of the Constitution. Still, every one of the fifty states continues to have God in its constitution. The authors discuss these cases and more current ones, such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which address whether personal religious beliefs supersede secular ones.
In Godless Citizens in a Godly Republic, the authors also explore the dramatic rise of an "atheist awakening" and the role of organizations intent on holding the country to the secular principles it was founded upon.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published August 21, 2018
42 people are currently reading
397 people want to read
About the author
R. Laurence Moore
16 books9 followersR. Laurence Moore is professor emeritus of history and American studies at Cornell University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
March 18, 2023
“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." -The United States Treaty of Tripoli, 1796
“I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” -George H. W. Bush, 1987
Did you know that there are only two full-size statues of Thomas Paine in the U.S.? Do you know why? It is because every time a monument to Paine is proposed there inevitably comes an objection from the theocratic right. Do you know why? It is because he penned The Age of Reason (1793), a “scathing critique” of organized religion.
Thomas Paine is but one example of a multitude of individuals in American history who are routinely disrespected due to their criticisms of fundamentalist ideology. Paine was no atheist, but he might as well have been. His exclusion from many high school textbooks puts him in close company with the likes of Robert Ingersoll and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Are a person’s religious convictions, or lack there of, predictive of their ability to lead? To handle state and national affairs? To act morally and ethically in service of the common good? Apparently many Americans think so. Hell, even Walt Whitman called himself a pantheist rather than an atheist or an agnostic to soften the blow and avoid the wretched glare of pious watchdogs.
Much of the antisecular bias that has permeated sociopolitical USA has been set atop three pillars of misconception: 1) a nonbeliever can not be a good person, 2) a nonbeliever can not be a good citizen, and 3) nonbelievers, like all intellectuals, are cultural elitists.
Authors Moore and Kramnick have written an eye opening history of secular Americans existing in this allegedly Christian State. They detail numerous incidents and litigations where American nonbelievers have been blatantly disadvantaged and discriminated against, and where the wall between church and state has been eroded or downright eradicated.
Contrary to what some reviewers are saying, Moore & Kramnick are not advocating for the suppression of religious freedom. No one wants that (not even me!). What is wanted is the disentanglement of theology from government, the disestablishment of this confessional state, and a return to the ideals and values put forth in our Godless Constitution.
“Hypocrisy is what empties the public square of moral purpose, and nothing encourages hypocrisy more than a God of convenience who finds sin not in what we do but in what our political opponents do.” -R. Laurence Moore & Isaac Kramnick
“I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” -George H. W. Bush, 1987
Did you know that there are only two full-size statues of Thomas Paine in the U.S.? Do you know why? It is because every time a monument to Paine is proposed there inevitably comes an objection from the theocratic right. Do you know why? It is because he penned The Age of Reason (1793), a “scathing critique” of organized religion.
Thomas Paine is but one example of a multitude of individuals in American history who are routinely disrespected due to their criticisms of fundamentalist ideology. Paine was no atheist, but he might as well have been. His exclusion from many high school textbooks puts him in close company with the likes of Robert Ingersoll and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Are a person’s religious convictions, or lack there of, predictive of their ability to lead? To handle state and national affairs? To act morally and ethically in service of the common good? Apparently many Americans think so. Hell, even Walt Whitman called himself a pantheist rather than an atheist or an agnostic to soften the blow and avoid the wretched glare of pious watchdogs.
Much of the antisecular bias that has permeated sociopolitical USA has been set atop three pillars of misconception: 1) a nonbeliever can not be a good person, 2) a nonbeliever can not be a good citizen, and 3) nonbelievers, like all intellectuals, are cultural elitists.
Authors Moore and Kramnick have written an eye opening history of secular Americans existing in this allegedly Christian State. They detail numerous incidents and litigations where American nonbelievers have been blatantly disadvantaged and discriminated against, and where the wall between church and state has been eroded or downright eradicated.
Contrary to what some reviewers are saying, Moore & Kramnick are not advocating for the suppression of religious freedom. No one wants that (not even me!). What is wanted is the disentanglement of theology from government, the disestablishment of this confessional state, and a return to the ideals and values put forth in our Godless Constitution.
“Hypocrisy is what empties the public square of moral purpose, and nothing encourages hypocrisy more than a God of convenience who finds sin not in what we do but in what our political opponents do.” -R. Laurence Moore & Isaac Kramnick
March 2, 2022
This is one of the better books about atheism in America. It’s neither strident, defensive nor accusatory. The authors cite autobiographies, newspaper articles and refer to the Constitution itself, as well as federal and state laws in order to point up the cause for atheism and the history of religion in the United States from its earliest beginnings to the 21st century.
America has never been a religious country in terms of its founding laws. But many Americans don’t believe that or don’t care. The authors point out the odd gap between America’s public policies, wherein they are careful not to let any religion gain a foothold (the bloody history among American Puritans, Protestants, Catholics and Mormons, et al., are a grim reminder of what happens when one religious sect gains majority over another), and its private imaginings. Throughout the centuries, atheism has been wrongfully coupled with everything from Satanism, paganism, socialism, communism to evolution and atheists have been persecuted because of it.
While the book doesn’t waste too much time on stating what atheism is (opinions may vary), it does reach the conclusion that no one should be vilified or penalized because of it. To this present day, many atheist politicians refuse to come out as atheist because they know it will negatively impact their chances of attaining office, especially that of the Presidency. Polls among Americans show that atheists are considered to be less trustworthy than any other minority.
What this book does offer is hope, as well as the listings of places where atheists can gather and talk to like-minded people. It urges them to meet openly and in public, to raise their voices and strive to battle discrimination wherever they see it. In the end, religious people and atheists want the same thing: a peaceful, prosperous nation that can thrive with reason, scientific discovery and calm, rational discussion.
This book is easy to read, comprehend and would make for great discussion material. Whether you’re an atheist or someone who wants to understand its history, I would recommend this book.
America has never been a religious country in terms of its founding laws. But many Americans don’t believe that or don’t care. The authors point out the odd gap between America’s public policies, wherein they are careful not to let any religion gain a foothold (the bloody history among American Puritans, Protestants, Catholics and Mormons, et al., are a grim reminder of what happens when one religious sect gains majority over another), and its private imaginings. Throughout the centuries, atheism has been wrongfully coupled with everything from Satanism, paganism, socialism, communism to evolution and atheists have been persecuted because of it.
While the book doesn’t waste too much time on stating what atheism is (opinions may vary), it does reach the conclusion that no one should be vilified or penalized because of it. To this present day, many atheist politicians refuse to come out as atheist because they know it will negatively impact their chances of attaining office, especially that of the Presidency. Polls among Americans show that atheists are considered to be less trustworthy than any other minority.
What this book does offer is hope, as well as the listings of places where atheists can gather and talk to like-minded people. It urges them to meet openly and in public, to raise their voices and strive to battle discrimination wherever they see it. In the end, religious people and atheists want the same thing: a peaceful, prosperous nation that can thrive with reason, scientific discovery and calm, rational discussion.
This book is easy to read, comprehend and would make for great discussion material. Whether you’re an atheist or someone who wants to understand its history, I would recommend this book.
October 26, 2018
This is a very edifying read. Started with exciting history, then a little lull, then the book really took off. There is a good chunk of historical info about the founding fathers and other influential and unknown figures, and their belief (Yes! They are all believers.) Context to that stance and ensuing events were lucidly explicated. 18th and 19th centuries seemed to be teeming with Nones who sprung to action. I thought Paine was the only skeptic among the famous historical figures of the Revolutionary Colonial America. The milieu and goals of that era was completely different than what I learnt in a few other works. I wanted to read this book especially about the Founding Fathers' faith; Though I learned and enjoyed that part, the second part, about the present, was the most exhilarating read for me. It was challenging too, as the Courts'/Judges' ruling was not so easy to digest with their verbiage.
I did not have any problems with the academic tone of the book but this book would've enormously benefited by separating sections with their own titles within each chapter. It was the most painful experience reading this book. No clear demarcation within a chapter, forcing me to reread a large chunk to resume from where I had broken off. For this very reason, I read the later chapters mostly in one sitting.
Nevertheless, I believe this is an important work among Atheistic Literature acting as an anti-thesis to New Atheists' belligerent writings. Along with John C. Wathey's "The Illusion of God's Presence," this gives a better understanding of Faithful's mindset and professes being empathetic to other people's beliefs no matter how ridiculous it may feel to us. This deserves to be read both by believers and non-believers to know the other side in a better light and to learn about this country's Civil Religion from the vantage point of all sides.
I did not have any problems with the academic tone of the book but this book would've enormously benefited by separating sections with their own titles within each chapter. It was the most painful experience reading this book. No clear demarcation within a chapter, forcing me to reread a large chunk to resume from where I had broken off. For this very reason, I read the later chapters mostly in one sitting.
Nevertheless, I believe this is an important work among Atheistic Literature acting as an anti-thesis to New Atheists' belligerent writings. Along with John C. Wathey's "The Illusion of God's Presence," this gives a better understanding of Faithful's mindset and professes being empathetic to other people's beliefs no matter how ridiculous it may feel to us. This deserves to be read both by believers and non-believers to know the other side in a better light and to learn about this country's Civil Religion from the vantage point of all sides.
March 30, 2018
"Godless Citizens" is an interesting book, but after perusing my review copy, I have to wonder what this adds to the conversation. It is another book that calls out the religious for their persecution complex while they attack the nonbelievers, who don't outnumber them in any state. It says that atheism is rapidly growing, which is true, and that the founding fathers weren't religious men, which is also true, but also well known. Being your average atheist, I didn't feel like I learned anything new from this book, and it contrasts with a book I read last year that was directly about the history of atheists in America and handled the same information.
It is well written, if not a little dry, but it seems redundant. We need more books that support atheism from the perspective of reason, because the history is told, and isn't doing much on it's own.
It is well written, if not a little dry, but it seems redundant. We need more books that support atheism from the perspective of reason, because the history is told, and isn't doing much on it's own.
September 6, 2018
The first warning sign that this book might not be as thoughtful as I wanted was the fact that E.B. White, whose quotation about religion begins the book, is cited as "the author of Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little," with no regard for (or knowledge of?) his long tenure as an essayist for The New Yorker. But I plowed forward! This book was merely fine--too academic to gain any pleasure from, but did a good job of demonstrating the way that courts bend over backward for the religious in this country and the trouble of the religious arguments. Most of the raw material I was somewhat aware of , so nothing was incredibly enlightening, but for the casual reader they might bring up new ideas of how very difficult a path the american atheist walks to fight for reasonable rights. In more writerly hands, this book could have been excellent.
August 25, 2018
A somewhat superficial account of some key members of the freethought movement and a more in depth chronicle of the legal challenges faced by the godless. The legal sections are ok but the biographical material is puzzling. The book skips most of the 20th century and only mentions Madalyn Murray O'Hair in passing. The only resemblance of an argument is in the epilogue and it is not persuasive.
October 11, 2018
Excellent history of the secular movement in the United States. Clearly written, enlightening as to the prejudice in law and society against “non-believers.” Makes the reader understand the total hypocrisy of our so called equal democracy.
June 27, 2022
America’s history – from its founding in the foment of the Enlightenment up to last week’s abortion ruling – is inextricably bound with religion. And, as we all know, the country’s relationship with religion is complicated—we’re ostensibly secular (the much-touted separation of church and state) but constantly betray that secularism with preference toward religion (which means Christianity here). That preference toward religion, and occasional lapses of church-and-state separation, aren’t really a big deal most of the time since America’s resting heartrate is already religious. But that religiosity becomes problematic when it comes to ensuring the constitutional rights of nonbelievers who wish to enforce the rules and effect that separation. It might seem as though this sort of thing works itself out in the courts, that there comes a point when complainants arguing that, say, the pledge of allegiance or the national motto ultimately violate constitutional proscriptions against endorsements of religion do, to the chagrin of the majority, get what they want because they’re right. Right though they are, this isn’t what happens. What Moore and Kramnick offer in their book is a long look at how atheism as a concept and atheists as a demographic have been by turns unacknowledged, ignored, ostracized, and punished, by way of illustrating how America has consistently floundered when put to enforcing its own rules about secularism. Each period they cover – colonial America, the long nineteenth century, the contemporary – abounds with confrontation and contradiction, and generally portrays an inability to give up religious practice in an ever-more-secular world. I’m especially interested in how M&K linked America’s hatred of socialism with its hatred of atheism (that an existing prejudice against atheism is what led to the demonization of left politics). Although they didn’t put it this way, M&K repeatedly show how the government’s nonsecular tendencies rest on a big fat petitio principii and so how secular petitioners continue to frustrate the judiciary by pointing out that logical fallacy. In 2022 there are eight state constitutions that require a belief in God in order to hold public office.
August 2, 2020
A better subtitle for this book would have been "Atheists on the Outskirts of American Public Life," because that's really what the bulk of the pages here seem to explore. Up until the last chapter, it's just example after example of social stigma against atheists court rulings on the side of religion (often involving significant judicial gymnastics to find loopholes), or outright dismissals of nonbelievers' concerns. Aside from a handful of exceptions, it's all depressingly one-note, but also very dry in its presentation. While the material is informative, it amounts to a book that's often not terribly enjoyable to sit through, regardless of what side of the fence you're on.
The final chapter and epilogue do at least try to take things in a different direction, exploring the rise of atheists from a virtually unknown minority to a sizable plurality in the US, some actual advancements toward equal footing, as well as suggestions for how all of us might make strides to find our differences a bit less contentious. It's barely 1/4 of the book, and one could argue it's too little, too late to change the dreary tone of the rest of it, but it's at least some optimism.
All in all, if you're interested in the history of atheists in a colloquially pious country, there's a lot of raw information here. It's not presented in a particularly engaging way much of the time, making this scant 204-page book a surprisingly slow read, but one can't fault it for being educational. It just feels more like assigned reading in a college course, rather than something a general audience would pick up and enjoy to the end.
The final chapter and epilogue do at least try to take things in a different direction, exploring the rise of atheists from a virtually unknown minority to a sizable plurality in the US, some actual advancements toward equal footing, as well as suggestions for how all of us might make strides to find our differences a bit less contentious. It's barely 1/4 of the book, and one could argue it's too little, too late to change the dreary tone of the rest of it, but it's at least some optimism.
All in all, if you're interested in the history of atheists in a colloquially pious country, there's a lot of raw information here. It's not presented in a particularly engaging way much of the time, making this scant 204-page book a surprisingly slow read, but one can't fault it for being educational. It just feels more like assigned reading in a college course, rather than something a general audience would pick up and enjoy to the end.
January 2, 2021
Level: Introductory.
Intended readership: Students, average people.
Strengths: Well-researched and written. A broad overview of atheism and religious freedom in America from the country's founding to the present day. Contains the detailed analysis and implications of numerous court cases involving religious freedoms.
Weaknesses: 1) In an effort to remain inclusive and non-partisan, the writing sometimes drifts toward relativism, especially in the final chapters; for one example, a theistic aversion to eternal damnation and 'non-theistic' concerns about climate change and nuclear annihilation are presented as equally valid reasons for avoiding unchecked arrogance, i.e., "know-it-all" syndrome: "God or no God-it doesn't matter." (Also, presenting climate change and nuclear annihilation as only 'nontheistic' concerns seems incorrect and myopic to me, and contradicts the aforementioned nonpartisan approach.)
2) The 'New atheist' movement is presented as a monolith whose sole purpose is to attack and destroy religion.
Remarks: To my thinking, the ideal world is not one in which all nonbelievers are militant atheists, but one in which people of all religious persuasions, or none, are able to live together freely. This book plants a foundation stone for such a world.
"It is not elitism, only common sense, to insist that the first principle of any public morality, whether theistic or nontheistic, is that human beings bear responsibility for what they do."
Intended readership: Students, average people.
Strengths: Well-researched and written. A broad overview of atheism and religious freedom in America from the country's founding to the present day. Contains the detailed analysis and implications of numerous court cases involving religious freedoms.
Weaknesses: 1) In an effort to remain inclusive and non-partisan, the writing sometimes drifts toward relativism, especially in the final chapters; for one example, a theistic aversion to eternal damnation and 'non-theistic' concerns about climate change and nuclear annihilation are presented as equally valid reasons for avoiding unchecked arrogance, i.e., "know-it-all" syndrome: "God or no God-it doesn't matter." (Also, presenting climate change and nuclear annihilation as only 'nontheistic' concerns seems incorrect and myopic to me, and contradicts the aforementioned nonpartisan approach.)
2) The 'New atheist' movement is presented as a monolith whose sole purpose is to attack and destroy religion.
Remarks: To my thinking, the ideal world is not one in which all nonbelievers are militant atheists, but one in which people of all religious persuasions, or none, are able to live together freely. This book plants a foundation stone for such a world.
"It is not elitism, only common sense, to insist that the first principle of any public morality, whether theistic or nontheistic, is that human beings bear responsibility for what they do."
October 22, 2018
I really enjoyed this brief history of atheism in the US - I had no idea about most of it! Its a fairly basic primer, so if this is a subject you already have some knowledge of, it might not be for you, but I really liked it! I'm going to grab the print book to see how/if he sources because I want to look some of those poll numbers up (like 8 in 10 Millennials and 40% of Coloradans being non-religious seems a tad high). Otherwise...to Google! 4 stars.
October 8, 2018
A well done historical review of the political and social impact of free thought/atheism/agnosticism on America, from colonial times up to the 2010s. This should be required reading for anyone trying to develop a full understanding of US politics, law, and history.
October 22, 2018
Although this had potential, I don't think it would be interesting to anyone who is not already an atheist academic. It focused too much on the minutiae of every single court case imaginable rather than telling a compelling story.
March 28, 2019
The history was really good in this book. And I especially appreciated the positive epilogue!
September 14, 2023
Solid and basic, but no more. Could have gotten a fourth star either with some more depth overall, or with a better epilogue with more honesty about the Gnu Atheists and about movement skepticism groups that have overlapped with them.
One area of lack of depth was not looking at the Secular Sunday or similar programs today, as far as where they're at. Or looking at where the Ethical Society is at today.
A second was not exploring more why Establishment Clause angled suits aren't pursued more.
A third was not asking if maybe more litigious Gnu Atheists WANT to be Brer Rabbit to religion's Tar Baby.
Some good things?
Notes that not all Gnu Atheist complaints about religion are true. Notes Islamophobia of three of the Four Gnu horsemen.
Probably right about herding cats.
The affective deficit of atheism, especially outside a structured secular "worship," is probably true to a degree.
Didn’t know how politically conservative Robert Ingersoll was. That's not atheism, but of note.
Now, the failures in the epilogue?
Could have mentioned specific lies by Gnu Atheists. One is the overarching lie that Nones are all atheists. Not even close.
One specific lie was FFRF claiming that Lincoln was an atheist, couple with claims Obama read the “wrong” version of the Gettysburg Address on the 150th anniversary. This either bespeaks a high degree of historical illiteracy among supposedly rational types, or a readiness to lie, a moral problem. I addressed that here.
Also, things like sexual harassment and even abuse, as in #MeToo, have popped up at places like the James Randi Education Foundation. Addressed in depth here.
That’s not to mention Randi himself willfully participating in identity theft by his lover, as well as buying into Jesus mythicism and other intellectually questionable ideas. That's discussed here.
The first two were well known before this book was written. The third was speculated about. Was Moore deliberately punch-pulling on grounds that this would give ammunition to theists?
Oh, and those lawsuits? Ones by FFRF? One of them, over a Texas Capitol Nativity, displayed either ignorance or willfulness about the facts at hand. Suing over Obama's second-term inaugural oath, discussed here, came off as both stupidity and glory-hogging, and backfired in both ways.
At the same time, contra this Don, who won't allow comments, Christianity has killed its own megamillions, through Crusades, antisemitism (that abetted even the Holocaust) and much more. Plus, his estimate of Mao's deaths is definitely inflated, and probably by at least a factor of two. In addition, such estimates are themselves politically driven. (He's a wingnut Catholic; probably Opus Dei.)
One area of lack of depth was not looking at the Secular Sunday or similar programs today, as far as where they're at. Or looking at where the Ethical Society is at today.
A second was not exploring more why Establishment Clause angled suits aren't pursued more.
A third was not asking if maybe more litigious Gnu Atheists WANT to be Brer Rabbit to religion's Tar Baby.
Some good things?
Notes that not all Gnu Atheist complaints about religion are true. Notes Islamophobia of three of the Four Gnu horsemen.
Probably right about herding cats.
The affective deficit of atheism, especially outside a structured secular "worship," is probably true to a degree.
Didn’t know how politically conservative Robert Ingersoll was. That's not atheism, but of note.
Now, the failures in the epilogue?
Could have mentioned specific lies by Gnu Atheists. One is the overarching lie that Nones are all atheists. Not even close.
One specific lie was FFRF claiming that Lincoln was an atheist, couple with claims Obama read the “wrong” version of the Gettysburg Address on the 150th anniversary. This either bespeaks a high degree of historical illiteracy among supposedly rational types, or a readiness to lie, a moral problem. I addressed that here.
Also, things like sexual harassment and even abuse, as in #MeToo, have popped up at places like the James Randi Education Foundation. Addressed in depth here.
That’s not to mention Randi himself willfully participating in identity theft by his lover, as well as buying into Jesus mythicism and other intellectually questionable ideas. That's discussed here.
The first two were well known before this book was written. The third was speculated about. Was Moore deliberately punch-pulling on grounds that this would give ammunition to theists?
Oh, and those lawsuits? Ones by FFRF? One of them, over a Texas Capitol Nativity, displayed either ignorance or willfulness about the facts at hand. Suing over Obama's second-term inaugural oath, discussed here, came off as both stupidity and glory-hogging, and backfired in both ways.
At the same time, contra this Don, who won't allow comments, Christianity has killed its own megamillions, through Crusades, antisemitism (that abetted even the Holocaust) and much more. Plus, his estimate of Mao's deaths is definitely inflated, and probably by at least a factor of two. In addition, such estimates are themselves politically driven. (He's a wingnut Catholic; probably Opus Dei.)
December 9, 2018
Godless Citizens in a Godly Republic focuses on the issue of separating religion from government, and how the first amendment doesn’t protect those who don’t live by religion. The text is organized and easy to follow and understand. The author uses specific quotes, dates, names, and citations to back up facts used in the text. In general the book begins by explaining definitions of words, and the history of the freedom of religion in America. Later, it discusses current issues that are relevant today, such as separating church and school.
The book immediately tells the issue and definition of the word “atheist” and how the American republic see’s that word and the people associated. However, the author doesn’t necessarily repeat certain words or phrases, the author most likely wanted to focus on the government side of the topic. The author did make an emphasis on words that stereotypically make non religious people look bad. It gives the word a different definition, which in turn helps the reader go in looking at both sides of religion. The tone of the book entirely seems very affirmative and uses more facts and different citations rather than emotion. This book gives those who believe in religion and those who do not a common ground, which is giving people the freedom of religion.
I thought the book was interesting for my own interest, considering I am not religious and would call myself an atheist. I strongly resonated with the point of keeping religion away from schools and other sorts of government. I also thought it’s still relevant in today's society, because of political leaders who rather believe that something may be bad and should be deemed unlawful such as same sex couples, instead of using logic to prove why it may be bad. I think this book was written neatly and gets straight to the point. I would recommend this book to someone who may be interested in political or religious topics.
The book immediately tells the issue and definition of the word “atheist” and how the American republic see’s that word and the people associated. However, the author doesn’t necessarily repeat certain words or phrases, the author most likely wanted to focus on the government side of the topic. The author did make an emphasis on words that stereotypically make non religious people look bad. It gives the word a different definition, which in turn helps the reader go in looking at both sides of religion. The tone of the book entirely seems very affirmative and uses more facts and different citations rather than emotion. This book gives those who believe in religion and those who do not a common ground, which is giving people the freedom of religion.
I thought the book was interesting for my own interest, considering I am not religious and would call myself an atheist. I strongly resonated with the point of keeping religion away from schools and other sorts of government. I also thought it’s still relevant in today's society, because of political leaders who rather believe that something may be bad and should be deemed unlawful such as same sex couples, instead of using logic to prove why it may be bad. I think this book was written neatly and gets straight to the point. I would recommend this book to someone who may be interested in political or religious topics.
July 25, 2021
This was an informative and very objective account of nonbelievers in American society. I particularly enjoyed the criticism Moore leveled at the Islamophobia of the New Atheist movement. I wish there were mentions of the deep connections between libertarian Atheist free speech movement and racism. The only mention to this was a quick mention of many Atheists following Ayn Rand's work closely. However, I felt the arguments in the book were robust and the historical analysis in the first half were both beneficial and persuasive in cautioning against the erasure of nonbelief in the educational curriculum. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Jane Addams were a few of the people I had no idea were nonbelievers even though I had read and studied them in the past particularly Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Women's Bible and the Seneca Falls Convention. Overall, I feel more informed about the history of the movement.
April 15, 2023
There are important questions here. Questions like: What did the America’s founders intend when they separated church and state? How is that separation manifested in today’s America? Must one be religious to be a “good” American? Do believers have stronger legal protections than non-believers? Moore's answers might surprise you.
November 21, 2023
This was a slow read even though it is a relatively short book. Much of it felt written for academic audiences. The discussion of various court cases was interesting. Overall, this summary of atheism in America felt like it was missing large parts of the story.
November 9, 2018
A bit dry at times, but lots of interesting items. Colonial Rhode Island; Thomas Paine; Robert Ingersoll; Elizabeth Cady Stanton; atheist conscientious objectors; FFRF.
September 7, 2020
‘twas good. Very court case heavy, which is necessary and expected but sometimes hard to focus on. I noted every organization listed to try and join them. To be a joiner! We’ll see.
January 27, 2023
A nuanced, historical look at both the individual and societal sides of non-belief in American history.
December 29, 2020
Atheists navigating "that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called ‘faith’"
In Godless Citizens in a Godly Republic: Atheists in American Public, authors Kramnick and Moore take a somewhat dry, scholarly but still fascinating look at what it means to be an atheist in a society that (mistakenly) considers religiosity the bedrock of civic existence. Religion — or, as they somewhat sharply put it, “…that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called ‘faith’” — has conveniently offered cover in our country for genocide, slavery, greed, racism and more awfulness, and yet somehow atheists are still the ones viewed with suspicion and distrust.
Specifically, the authors focus on many of the legal challenges atheists have brought forward to try and break free from “second class” status.
The book shines a light on such issues as compulsory school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, discrimination against nonbelievers and the ongoing wrangling about whether America is a “Christian” nation. The authors offer carefully researched insights into the religious beliefs of the theistic, but not necessarily Christian, founding fathers. In fact, “Crucial to the faith of the founders was a belief that human reason could bring people together.”
Obviously, we still have a ways to go.
Much of the book centers on cases brought before the judiciary about things like school prayer, the “under god” business in the pledge of allegiance and swearing on a bible as somehow magically conferring dignity and truth upon proceedings, testimony, taking public office, etc. Setting aside the fact that all major religions have different versions of gods and different interpretations of the bible, looking at this last case, it’s a meaningless statement and an empty gesture that is dismissive or demeaning of my beliefs as an atheist. I can tell the truth without palming someone’s magic book and pledging to some amalgam of gods that is pleasing to the majority. Moreover, I shouldn’t be forced to.
And, oddly, the courts agree in a backward sort of way that is simultaneously discriminatory to atheists and undermining to the faithful.
“…courts are often content to sanction the discrimination rather than challenge the force of custom and deal with ensuing storms of protest.”
The courts, through multiple rulings, go to great legal contortions to make it clear the swearing and pledging are simple customs, and so don’t pose a real hardship on atheists. In other words, you don’t have to believe it, you just have to do it because that’s the way it’s always been done. First, that confirms what many atheists already believe — that religiosity (as opposed to spirituality) is an empty and performative act. And second, forced participation is a ludicrous and unsupportable strategy for justifying adherence. Imagine for just a hot second if Christians were forced to swear in on a copy of the Koran because that’s the way it’s always been done and it’s a meaningless action anyway so just do it and be quiet.
And why are we so anxious to provide a patina of religious justification anyway? As the authors eloquently put it, “It is not elitism, only common sense, to insist that the first principle of any public morality, whether theistic or nontheistic, is that human beings bear responsibility for what they do.”
Atheists, because we got tangled up in communist and socialist hysteria, remain at very bottom of the list of “true Americans” because, or so goes the theory, we don’t have a working concept of morality if it can’t be tracked back to some spiritual backstop. Even though we’ve seen that backstop relaxed time and again for some pretty horrific things, nothing could be farther from the truth. I actually think many atheists, who don’t have the luxury of a blanket pardon from celestial beings, are enlightened and progressive about how all humans should be treated, not just those in our tribe. Or at least, those who aren’t blinded by national tribalism and the lust for power, are willing to at least think more openly and broadly about the rights of all. But historically and currently, atheists are too easily scapegoated, the distrust sharpened by those who seek political ends and worldly power under a comfy quilt of faith-based eternal forgiveness regardless of the crime.
Because nothing “encourages hypocrisy more than a god of convenience who finds sin not in what we do but in what our political opponents do.”
This is a good and important book, and one that atheists and non-atheists alike should read. Understanding how to have a society that welcomes and better serves all members — even those who don’t share specific religious beliefs — seems like a still distant but laudable goal.
In Godless Citizens in a Godly Republic: Atheists in American Public, authors Kramnick and Moore take a somewhat dry, scholarly but still fascinating look at what it means to be an atheist in a society that (mistakenly) considers religiosity the bedrock of civic existence. Religion — or, as they somewhat sharply put it, “…that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called ‘faith’” — has conveniently offered cover in our country for genocide, slavery, greed, racism and more awfulness, and yet somehow atheists are still the ones viewed with suspicion and distrust.
Specifically, the authors focus on many of the legal challenges atheists have brought forward to try and break free from “second class” status.
The book shines a light on such issues as compulsory school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, discrimination against nonbelievers and the ongoing wrangling about whether America is a “Christian” nation. The authors offer carefully researched insights into the religious beliefs of the theistic, but not necessarily Christian, founding fathers. In fact, “Crucial to the faith of the founders was a belief that human reason could bring people together.”
Obviously, we still have a ways to go.
Much of the book centers on cases brought before the judiciary about things like school prayer, the “under god” business in the pledge of allegiance and swearing on a bible as somehow magically conferring dignity and truth upon proceedings, testimony, taking public office, etc. Setting aside the fact that all major religions have different versions of gods and different interpretations of the bible, looking at this last case, it’s a meaningless statement and an empty gesture that is dismissive or demeaning of my beliefs as an atheist. I can tell the truth without palming someone’s magic book and pledging to some amalgam of gods that is pleasing to the majority. Moreover, I shouldn’t be forced to.
And, oddly, the courts agree in a backward sort of way that is simultaneously discriminatory to atheists and undermining to the faithful.
“…courts are often content to sanction the discrimination rather than challenge the force of custom and deal with ensuing storms of protest.”
The courts, through multiple rulings, go to great legal contortions to make it clear the swearing and pledging are simple customs, and so don’t pose a real hardship on atheists. In other words, you don’t have to believe it, you just have to do it because that’s the way it’s always been done. First, that confirms what many atheists already believe — that religiosity (as opposed to spirituality) is an empty and performative act. And second, forced participation is a ludicrous and unsupportable strategy for justifying adherence. Imagine for just a hot second if Christians were forced to swear in on a copy of the Koran because that’s the way it’s always been done and it’s a meaningless action anyway so just do it and be quiet.
And why are we so anxious to provide a patina of religious justification anyway? As the authors eloquently put it, “It is not elitism, only common sense, to insist that the first principle of any public morality, whether theistic or nontheistic, is that human beings bear responsibility for what they do.”
Atheists, because we got tangled up in communist and socialist hysteria, remain at very bottom of the list of “true Americans” because, or so goes the theory, we don’t have a working concept of morality if it can’t be tracked back to some spiritual backstop. Even though we’ve seen that backstop relaxed time and again for some pretty horrific things, nothing could be farther from the truth. I actually think many atheists, who don’t have the luxury of a blanket pardon from celestial beings, are enlightened and progressive about how all humans should be treated, not just those in our tribe. Or at least, those who aren’t blinded by national tribalism and the lust for power, are willing to at least think more openly and broadly about the rights of all. But historically and currently, atheists are too easily scapegoated, the distrust sharpened by those who seek political ends and worldly power under a comfy quilt of faith-based eternal forgiveness regardless of the crime.
Because nothing “encourages hypocrisy more than a god of convenience who finds sin not in what we do but in what our political opponents do.”
This is a good and important book, and one that atheists and non-atheists alike should read. Understanding how to have a society that welcomes and better serves all members — even those who don’t share specific religious beliefs — seems like a still distant but laudable goal.
August 29, 2021
Given the volume of history noted and no mention of the wonders of atheism promoted by governments that are...communist, a killing field of 100 million as recorded by numerous sources.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews