What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of American Religious Freedom
In the battles over religion and politics in America, both liberals and conservatives often appeal to history. Liberals claim that the Founders separated church and state. But for much of American history, David Sehat writes, Protestant Christianity was intimately intertwined with the state. Yet the past was not the Christian utopia that conservatives imagine either. Instead, a Protestant moral establishment prevailed, using government power to punish free thinkers and religious dissidents.
In The Myth of American Religious Freedom , Sehat provides an eye-opening history of religion in public life, overturning our most cherished myths. Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, which had limited authority. The Protestant moral establishment ruled on the state level. Using moral laws to uphold religious power, religious partisans enforced a moral and religious orthodoxy against Catholics, Jews, Mormons, agnostics, and others. Not until 1940 did the U.S. Supreme Court extend the First Amendment to the states. As the Supreme Court began to dismantle the connections between religion and government, Sehat argues, religious conservatives mobilized to maintain their power and began the culture wars of the last fifty years. To trace the rise and fall of this Protestant establishment, Sehat focuses on a series of dissenters--abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, socialist Eugene V. Debs, and many others.
Shattering myths held by both the left and right, David Sehat forces us to rethink some of our most deeply held beliefs. By showing the bad history used on both sides, he denies partisans a safe refuge with the Founders.
In The Myth of American Religious Freedom , Sehat provides an eye-opening history of religion in public life, overturning our most cherished myths. Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, which had limited authority. The Protestant moral establishment ruled on the state level. Using moral laws to uphold religious power, religious partisans enforced a moral and religious orthodoxy against Catholics, Jews, Mormons, agnostics, and others. Not until 1940 did the U.S. Supreme Court extend the First Amendment to the states. As the Supreme Court began to dismantle the connections between religion and government, Sehat argues, religious conservatives mobilized to maintain their power and began the culture wars of the last fifty years. To trace the rise and fall of this Protestant establishment, Sehat focuses on a series of dissenters--abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, socialist Eugene V. Debs, and many others.
Shattering myths held by both the left and right, David Sehat forces us to rethink some of our most deeply held beliefs. By showing the bad history used on both sides, he denies partisans a safe refuge with the Founders.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published December 11, 2010
12 people are currently reading
252 people want to read
About the author
David Sehat
6 books2 followersDavid Sehat is Associate Professor of History at Georgia State University. Specializing in American cultural and intellectual history, he completed a PhD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and spent a postdoctoral year at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences as a Visiting Scholar.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 10, 2015
For an excellent synopsis of this book, see the official book description here.
Although I do not agree with all of the author's arguments and interpretations, this is a book that should be read by all serious students of American history and constitutional law. It presents a wealth of information, especially regarding the nineteenth century, that is not well known. Whatever one's ultimate opinions concerning the book's thesis and subsidiary arguments, the author has made a substantial contribution to historical and constitutional knowledge.
Some of my agreements and disagreements with Sehat's disturbing analyses are discussed in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. For example, Sehat anachronistically misinterprets the position of Isaac Backus (1724-1806), the great Baptist opponent of religious taxes and other discriminatory laws imposed by Massachusetts against religious dissenters during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Although Backus's theology and political philosophy could scarcely be called modern, he was, in fact, a strong opponent of the "blending of church and state," citing works by Roger Williams (ca. 1603-83), who was banished from Massachusetts Bay for his support of separation of church and state and related doctrines. Thus, for Sehat to argue that Backus "condemned . . . the separation of religion and state" (The Myth of Religious Freedom, 32) is simply contrary to the historical evidence. Sehat also implicitly follows the view of William G. McLoughlin that Backus supported religious tests for public office. Ibid., 26-27. That position is contradicted, among other things, by Backus's famous opposition to all religious tests at the 1788 Massachusetts ratifying convention for the U.S. Constitution. Speech of Isaac Backus, February 4, 1788, in Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution . . . , 2nd ed., with considerable additions, ed. Jonathan Elliot (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1901), 2:148-49. For additional information regarding Backus's role at the 1788 Massachusetts Convention, see Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-88 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010), 163, 201, 204, 207, 208, 212.
Sehat's book is very strong on nineteenth- and twentieth-century historical and legal developments. His account of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century American history does not seem to be as informed. As mentioned above, he misunderstands Isaac Backus. Moreover, he totally fails to mention Roger Williams. Suffice it to say that Roger Williams was considerably more advanced in his views about separation of religion and state than most nineteenth- and many twentieth-century commentators. He opposed any concept of a "Christian nation" even though he himself was a deeply religious man. Although he often—as was virtually mandatory during the seventeenth century—used scriptural arguments, he also argued explicitly on the basis of reason and experience alone. Some of his views were dated. Others have survived the test of time.
With the foregoing and a few other reservations, I have no hesitation in recommending Sehat's book. His explication of nineteenth- and twentieth-century American history on religion and government is outstanding.
(Originally posted 12/15/2014; revised 8/10/2015)
Although I do not agree with all of the author's arguments and interpretations, this is a book that should be read by all serious students of American history and constitutional law. It presents a wealth of information, especially regarding the nineteenth century, that is not well known. Whatever one's ultimate opinions concerning the book's thesis and subsidiary arguments, the author has made a substantial contribution to historical and constitutional knowledge.
Some of my agreements and disagreements with Sehat's disturbing analyses are discussed in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. For example, Sehat anachronistically misinterprets the position of Isaac Backus (1724-1806), the great Baptist opponent of religious taxes and other discriminatory laws imposed by Massachusetts against religious dissenters during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Although Backus's theology and political philosophy could scarcely be called modern, he was, in fact, a strong opponent of the "blending of church and state," citing works by Roger Williams (ca. 1603-83), who was banished from Massachusetts Bay for his support of separation of church and state and related doctrines. Thus, for Sehat to argue that Backus "condemned . . . the separation of religion and state" (The Myth of Religious Freedom, 32) is simply contrary to the historical evidence. Sehat also implicitly follows the view of William G. McLoughlin that Backus supported religious tests for public office. Ibid., 26-27. That position is contradicted, among other things, by Backus's famous opposition to all religious tests at the 1788 Massachusetts ratifying convention for the U.S. Constitution. Speech of Isaac Backus, February 4, 1788, in Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution . . . , 2nd ed., with considerable additions, ed. Jonathan Elliot (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1901), 2:148-49. For additional information regarding Backus's role at the 1788 Massachusetts Convention, see Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-88 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010), 163, 201, 204, 207, 208, 212.
Sehat's book is very strong on nineteenth- and twentieth-century historical and legal developments. His account of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century American history does not seem to be as informed. As mentioned above, he misunderstands Isaac Backus. Moreover, he totally fails to mention Roger Williams. Suffice it to say that Roger Williams was considerably more advanced in his views about separation of religion and state than most nineteenth- and many twentieth-century commentators. He opposed any concept of a "Christian nation" even though he himself was a deeply religious man. Although he often—as was virtually mandatory during the seventeenth century—used scriptural arguments, he also argued explicitly on the basis of reason and experience alone. Some of his views were dated. Others have survived the test of time.
With the foregoing and a few other reservations, I have no hesitation in recommending Sehat's book. His explication of nineteenth- and twentieth-century American history on religion and government is outstanding.
(Originally posted 12/15/2014; revised 8/10/2015)
January 3, 2011
Given that Sehat follows in the same tradition of American intellectual historiography that I do, you will not be surprised to find that I found his argument compelling, even if I would quibble over some things. A healthy civil society, he argues, "preserves a disorderly space that provides a buffer between the power of the state and the freedom of individuals and serves as a breeding ground for the contentious politics that are a healthy part of modern democracies" (p. 285, my emphasis). In this sense, his book is a defense of the notion that America has had a health civil society throughout its history.
But the notion that America's religious history has been a "breeding ground" for contentious politics undercuts both the myths about religious liberty held by conservatives and liberals. Sehat argues that American history has neither been a gradual decline away from a Christian nation (the myth of the Right) nor a nation that from the beginning protected politics from the incursion of religious controls (the myth of the Left). Sehat traces the tension and debate over what religious freedom means from Virginia to the Moral Majority (most of his emphasis, I might say, is on pre-20th century episodes).
I particularly enjoyed Sehat's account of colonial Virginia in the early chapters, and the debates among the abolitionists in the second part. His account of the creation of a "moral establishment" in the early 19th century is compelling: "Moral establishmentarians ... dismissed the assertion that religious liberty entailed freedom from religion in public life. They asserted instead that it required the freedom of believers to bring their religion into public life to establish an ordered society" (p. 155, emphasis in original). A common moral code escaped the constitutional constraint on religious activity in the public sphere, but simultaneously allowed coercion by the dominant religion; a point made well by Tocqueville and J.S. Mill. In a sense, that conundrum -- how could America be both free of religious involvement in political life and at the same time dominated by a particular religious perspective that ended up exercising moral and political control -- is the impetus behind Sehat's book.
I would encourage those who read Sehat's book to also read Hugh Heclo's Christianity and American Democracy. What Heclo's book lacks in historical detail, Sehat provides; and what Sehat lacks in philosophical nuance, Heclo provides!
But the notion that America's religious history has been a "breeding ground" for contentious politics undercuts both the myths about religious liberty held by conservatives and liberals. Sehat argues that American history has neither been a gradual decline away from a Christian nation (the myth of the Right) nor a nation that from the beginning protected politics from the incursion of religious controls (the myth of the Left). Sehat traces the tension and debate over what religious freedom means from Virginia to the Moral Majority (most of his emphasis, I might say, is on pre-20th century episodes).
I particularly enjoyed Sehat's account of colonial Virginia in the early chapters, and the debates among the abolitionists in the second part. His account of the creation of a "moral establishment" in the early 19th century is compelling: "Moral establishmentarians ... dismissed the assertion that religious liberty entailed freedom from religion in public life. They asserted instead that it required the freedom of believers to bring their religion into public life to establish an ordered society" (p. 155, emphasis in original). A common moral code escaped the constitutional constraint on religious activity in the public sphere, but simultaneously allowed coercion by the dominant religion; a point made well by Tocqueville and J.S. Mill. In a sense, that conundrum -- how could America be both free of religious involvement in political life and at the same time dominated by a particular religious perspective that ended up exercising moral and political control -- is the impetus behind Sehat's book.
I would encourage those who read Sehat's book to also read Hugh Heclo's Christianity and American Democracy. What Heclo's book lacks in historical detail, Sehat provides; and what Sehat lacks in philosophical nuance, Heclo provides!
May 21, 2025
A deep, thorough historical and legal examination of religious freedom in the United States, going from the founding until contemporary times. It breaks through the commonly held myths, setting the record straight on the historical role of religion in the US and how it shaped the cultural and social conflicts that have marked it.
December 21, 2016
Sehat's real set of concerns and theses is in his concluding chapter, which could be read as an essay on its own if someone wanted to skip the legwork he does in walking through the history of what he's describing. Among them are strong challenges to both liberal and conservative judicial impulses. I valued the historical approach and the tour-de-force of topics from the early discussions amongst Jefferson and Madison forward to some of the most recent SCOTUS decisions (the book was published in 2011). As with other accounts of the history of politics and religion, the book raises much that nothing of this length could possibly sustain, but I appreciated the set of questions it got me thinking about, and I think the major challenges to both liberal and conservative judicial traditions were well-articulated.
By and large, to the liberals he notes that 1) there is truth to the conservative point that the country has a lengthy tradition of inter-connecting church and state, and 2) that liberal jurisprudence in the 1900s never directly engaged the fact that they were in fact departing from that tradition out of a sense that the country needed a broader set of protections for the rights of minority viewpoints. Sehat spends time describing the "Myth of American Religious Freedom" that a fair amount of liberal court activity stood on, rather than doing the more significant work of explaining how constitutional principles call for repudiating that tradition.
To conservatives, he essentially makes the point that the desire to use civil government to enforce the moral ideals of a religious group -- specifically, evangelical and protestant Christianity -- goes against the constitution's hopes for a truly free society. He pushes beyond that as well, arguing that where liberals have imagined a history free of entanglement, conservatives have imagined a history free of state coercion, and that this is the conservative version of the "Myth of American Religious Freedom."
The chapters before these summarizing thoughts do the homework. They go through a broad range of historical periods and topics, most of them controversial. A number of well-known court cases are discussed, as are various social movements both conservative and liberal. Some were familiar to me; others surprising. By the end of the book, I felt like I had a decent handle on "moral establishment" positions, and a new lens to apply to the history around religious freedom in the US.
By and large, I'd recommend the book. Although Sehat seems to have a perspective that ultimately endorses some liberal positions, he's pretty strong in his critique of both sides, and his desire for historical awareness and a consistent judicial process is refreshing regardless of his "side."
By and large, to the liberals he notes that 1) there is truth to the conservative point that the country has a lengthy tradition of inter-connecting church and state, and 2) that liberal jurisprudence in the 1900s never directly engaged the fact that they were in fact departing from that tradition out of a sense that the country needed a broader set of protections for the rights of minority viewpoints. Sehat spends time describing the "Myth of American Religious Freedom" that a fair amount of liberal court activity stood on, rather than doing the more significant work of explaining how constitutional principles call for repudiating that tradition.
To conservatives, he essentially makes the point that the desire to use civil government to enforce the moral ideals of a religious group -- specifically, evangelical and protestant Christianity -- goes against the constitution's hopes for a truly free society. He pushes beyond that as well, arguing that where liberals have imagined a history free of entanglement, conservatives have imagined a history free of state coercion, and that this is the conservative version of the "Myth of American Religious Freedom."
The chapters before these summarizing thoughts do the homework. They go through a broad range of historical periods and topics, most of them controversial. A number of well-known court cases are discussed, as are various social movements both conservative and liberal. Some were familiar to me; others surprising. By the end of the book, I felt like I had a decent handle on "moral establishment" positions, and a new lens to apply to the history around religious freedom in the US.
By and large, I'd recommend the book. Although Sehat seems to have a perspective that ultimately endorses some liberal positions, he's pretty strong in his critique of both sides, and his desire for historical awareness and a consistent judicial process is refreshing regardless of his "side."
October 29, 2017
Absolutely illuminating. The early chapters surrounding the Revolutionary period and religious exclusion laws were particularly interesting because of a point later in the book of the mid-20th century idea that one of America's founding ideas was broad freedom of religion. The bulk of the book focused on the "moral establishment" of the 19th century and those who opposed it based on race and gender for the most part, but I wish Sehat had given more pages to the final chapters of the book dealing with the 20th century Supreme Court decisions.
May 11, 2012
As the teach of a secular subject (history) at a Christian college, I was well aware of the arguments that stated an unequivocal "Christian nation" which privileges Christian "religious liberty" first and foremost. Likewise, I was aware of the liberal arguments that posited a secular religious liberty tradition dating back to the country's founding, and which needed tending and revitalization if we were to truly honor the First Amendment.
Sehat's book wades full-on into that debate. He tackles this issue forthrightly by doubting the primordial religious freedom both sides espouse. Instead, Sehat argues that the boundaries of religious freedom have been formed by that very debate, subject to change and interpretation, but mostly shaped by the existence of a "Protestant moral establishment" that decreed what was and was not (religiously) acceptable.
The Myth of American Religious freedom is a nuanced, sophisticated book that goes beyond mere Constitutional arguments and into larger the larger political and social climate of US religion. Sehat links American religious freedom with the rise of the Protestant moral establishment, and traces its development to the present day, and forecasts its future. Sehat points out that morality and law are linked to religious values, indeed that they have intimately informed them in the American context. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that religion has not been taken seriously by Americans. His middle chapters on slavery and women's rights should cause readers to think how extensive this link is. As such, to argue some sort of pre-existing state of consensus religious freedom is nearly impossible.
Sehat leaves plenty of room discussing the dissent from this establishment how the idea of a peaceful religious consensus has never been the case. As a result, Sehat forcefully argues that coercion and the use of law to enforce morality begs the question--to what religious freedom were Americans ever agreeing?
Sehat concludes with a powerful finish that strips both "left" and "right" of the notion that they have history exclusively on their side. By doing so, Sehat forces us to rethink the idea of religious freedom for our present day.
Sehat's book wades full-on into that debate. He tackles this issue forthrightly by doubting the primordial religious freedom both sides espouse. Instead, Sehat argues that the boundaries of religious freedom have been formed by that very debate, subject to change and interpretation, but mostly shaped by the existence of a "Protestant moral establishment" that decreed what was and was not (religiously) acceptable.
The Myth of American Religious freedom is a nuanced, sophisticated book that goes beyond mere Constitutional arguments and into larger the larger political and social climate of US religion. Sehat links American religious freedom with the rise of the Protestant moral establishment, and traces its development to the present day, and forecasts its future. Sehat points out that morality and law are linked to religious values, indeed that they have intimately informed them in the American context. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that religion has not been taken seriously by Americans. His middle chapters on slavery and women's rights should cause readers to think how extensive this link is. As such, to argue some sort of pre-existing state of consensus religious freedom is nearly impossible.
Sehat leaves plenty of room discussing the dissent from this establishment how the idea of a peaceful religious consensus has never been the case. As a result, Sehat forcefully argues that coercion and the use of law to enforce morality begs the question--to what religious freedom were Americans ever agreeing?
Sehat concludes with a powerful finish that strips both "left" and "right" of the notion that they have history exclusively on their side. By doing so, Sehat forces us to rethink the idea of religious freedom for our present day.
October 20, 2014
Essentially argues that before the three decade liberal exception (1936-1968), conservative Protestantism was the de facto moral establishment of the United States, and its adherents worked against all aspects of liberalization and plurality through moral coercion, often in the courts. Every major challenge, from emancipation, to the rights of women, to labor activism, was an assault on this moral establishment by those who promoted the rights of the individual over the moral needs of the group.
He and I got off on the wrong foot, when he made the frustrating and too-often repeated claim that the 'certainty' of atheists is as objectionable as the 'certainty' of fundamentalists. As though there is an equivalence between the rejection of something for which their is no evidence, and the acceptance of something for which there is no evidence - as though belief in God or any other damned fool thing is a 50-50 truth proposition. Ugh.
Anyhoo. The ambition and scope of the book are grand, and this grandness is at once the reason for the book's success and the cause of many of its failures. I was at times confused as to why he focused in on the events and characters that he chose to focus in on, and was left feeling less that it made narrative sense, and more that, when surveying 300 years of history, you just don't have time to talk about much more. Felt like to really do the subject justice, this needed to be 2x as long at least. I was also concerned that he left out several movements that do not fit neatly into the moral-suasion vs. individual liberty paradigm: most glaring was the absence of a single mention of William Jennings Bryan or the Populists - whose movement was home to both the best and the worst of both sides of the coercion-liberty binary.
He and I got off on the wrong foot, when he made the frustrating and too-often repeated claim that the 'certainty' of atheists is as objectionable as the 'certainty' of fundamentalists. As though there is an equivalence between the rejection of something for which their is no evidence, and the acceptance of something for which there is no evidence - as though belief in God or any other damned fool thing is a 50-50 truth proposition. Ugh.
Anyhoo. The ambition and scope of the book are grand, and this grandness is at once the reason for the book's success and the cause of many of its failures. I was at times confused as to why he focused in on the events and characters that he chose to focus in on, and was left feeling less that it made narrative sense, and more that, when surveying 300 years of history, you just don't have time to talk about much more. Felt like to really do the subject justice, this needed to be 2x as long at least. I was also concerned that he left out several movements that do not fit neatly into the moral-suasion vs. individual liberty paradigm: most glaring was the absence of a single mention of William Jennings Bryan or the Populists - whose movement was home to both the best and the worst of both sides of the coercion-liberty binary.
June 10, 2011
This book is interesting but tedious. It disabused me of many incorrect assumptions I had regarding American history and religion. An important book to read if you think that America is a Christian nation or a secular one.
Read my full review at my book review blog, Em and Emm Expound on Exposition.
Read my full review at my book review blog, Em and Emm Expound on Exposition.
August 1, 2020
A useful corrective to the myth of the title. For most of its history, America was legally and socially dominated by a Protestant establishment with no qualms about exercising its power to suppress religious doctrines and social practices it found threatening.
Many states began with established churches, had blasphemy laws on the books that were sometimes enforced, disbarred non-Christians from public office, and enforced general social practices (monogamy, Sunday rest) out of Christian piety.
That said, the unique structure of the American constitution and intellectual life often forced the justification for this domination into hypocritical misdirection towards moral language divorces from the actual Protestant origins of the rules.
Later, the emerging secular power structure (its approach heralded by Louis Brandeis citing social science rather than moral law in an early 20th century brief before the Supreme Court) would pretend that religious liberty was a longstanding American tradition as it demolished Protestant rule. Now that organized Protestantism is reduced to one interest group among many, it’s probably safe enough to admit this was historically mendacious, and for liberals to forthrightly admit that they dramatically altered America in the 20th century.
By the end however I felt that Sehat had left one last liberal myth unchallenged. He believes the liberal dissent that ultimately shattered this establishment power in the mid 20th century was working towards a regime of individual liberty, and the way forward for American law is to develop a minimal consensus that will allow Americans of all different creeds to live together.
After having read Cowling on Mill, I don’t get anything about this kind of Rawlsian story, it just sounds like propaganda from an emergent sect with different power bases (social sciences and state bureaucracy rather than churches).
Many states began with established churches, had blasphemy laws on the books that were sometimes enforced, disbarred non-Christians from public office, and enforced general social practices (monogamy, Sunday rest) out of Christian piety.
That said, the unique structure of the American constitution and intellectual life often forced the justification for this domination into hypocritical misdirection towards moral language divorces from the actual Protestant origins of the rules.
Later, the emerging secular power structure (its approach heralded by Louis Brandeis citing social science rather than moral law in an early 20th century brief before the Supreme Court) would pretend that religious liberty was a longstanding American tradition as it demolished Protestant rule. Now that organized Protestantism is reduced to one interest group among many, it’s probably safe enough to admit this was historically mendacious, and for liberals to forthrightly admit that they dramatically altered America in the 20th century.
By the end however I felt that Sehat had left one last liberal myth unchallenged. He believes the liberal dissent that ultimately shattered this establishment power in the mid 20th century was working towards a regime of individual liberty, and the way forward for American law is to develop a minimal consensus that will allow Americans of all different creeds to live together.
After having read Cowling on Mill, I don’t get anything about this kind of Rawlsian story, it just sounds like propaganda from an emergent sect with different power bases (social sciences and state bureaucracy rather than churches).
July 12, 2022
This is one of the best works of American religious history I've ever read.
Sehat sets up a simple narrative: that religious freedom as defended by liberal proponents of separating church and state is a myth. America, in fact, has long neglected such a separation, instead preferring a coercive moral establishment aligned with conservative Protestant religion. This establishment might not have been supported by taxpayer dollars, but it elected most public officials, appointed most judges, and made and enforced most laws and regulations until the early 20th century.
Sehat highlights the role of dissenters – Madison, Garrison, Stanton, Ingersoll, Debs – in showing mainly how ineffectual they were in marshaling the resources to overthrow this establishment in favor of something emphasizing individual rights. That said, he also seems to understate the current of liberal opposition to this establishment by focusing on top-down measures like political leaders and court decisions. He has no room for the Transcendentalists and other Protestant liberals who dissented from the status quo; he short-changes the Social Gospel and doesn’t make clear how it arose from deep divisions over the role of modern thinking in religious life that bubbled up after the Civil War. The result is that the early 20th century shift from moral establishment to individual rights seems almost ex nihilo, rather than the result of tectonic changes in postbellum life exacerbated by the war itself.
Yet this focus on the Protestant moral establishment, especially chapters on the Revolutionary era, constitutional ratification, abolition, women’s rights, and the labor movement are particularly helpful in providing a fuller picture of American religious history and its fragmentation in the late 19th century. And it fits with other books on religious freedom questioning whether the ideals enshrined in the Constitution were ever really there in anything but word form.
Sehat sets up a simple narrative: that religious freedom as defended by liberal proponents of separating church and state is a myth. America, in fact, has long neglected such a separation, instead preferring a coercive moral establishment aligned with conservative Protestant religion. This establishment might not have been supported by taxpayer dollars, but it elected most public officials, appointed most judges, and made and enforced most laws and regulations until the early 20th century.
Sehat highlights the role of dissenters – Madison, Garrison, Stanton, Ingersoll, Debs – in showing mainly how ineffectual they were in marshaling the resources to overthrow this establishment in favor of something emphasizing individual rights. That said, he also seems to understate the current of liberal opposition to this establishment by focusing on top-down measures like political leaders and court decisions. He has no room for the Transcendentalists and other Protestant liberals who dissented from the status quo; he short-changes the Social Gospel and doesn’t make clear how it arose from deep divisions over the role of modern thinking in religious life that bubbled up after the Civil War. The result is that the early 20th century shift from moral establishment to individual rights seems almost ex nihilo, rather than the result of tectonic changes in postbellum life exacerbated by the war itself.
Yet this focus on the Protestant moral establishment, especially chapters on the Revolutionary era, constitutional ratification, abolition, women’s rights, and the labor movement are particularly helpful in providing a fuller picture of American religious history and its fragmentation in the late 19th century. And it fits with other books on religious freedom questioning whether the ideals enshrined in the Constitution were ever really there in anything but word form.
July 7, 2014
Yes, the first 50 pages are so dense it is at times frustrating. But holy revisionist history, Batman, this is a great read. Like, one of those game-changing history books (yes, I used "Like" in the colloquial sense, that's how strongly I feel). In this book, we see how the unsung heroes of American history, from the Framers onward, tend to be those who argue in favor of religious freedom, not just to believe what you want, BUT ALSO not to impose your beliefs on others. This book summarizes in eye-opening detail and clarity the attempts by people throughout our history to impose a Protestant Christian ethos on the land, marginalizing dissenters and other groups, and how those other groups slowly earned a place in society. James Madison was on the money for not wanting state-supported Christianity, which everyone from Patrick Henry to George Washington wanted in some degree. Sehat also conveys just how tenuous the pluralistic and democratic gains of the last 120 years really are - plenty of people still believe in Christian-based American exceptionalism, and plenty of people want to enshrine Christian ethics through law (see: the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court verdict). Sehat offers us a powerful challenge to separate religion from the law, not only to believe what we want, but also not to create laws that, by citing religious freedom, hurt and marginalize and oppress and disenfranchise other people. Read this once for the information, then read it again for the full meaning.
August 21, 2014
Religious freedom has only come recently to America. Originally, the Protestant moral establishment ruled on the state level. Using moral laws to uphold religious power, religious partisans enforced a moral and religious orthodoxy against Catholics, Jews, Mormons, agnostics, and others. Not until 1940 did the U.S. Supreme Court extend the First Amendment to the states. As the Supreme Court began to dismantle the connections between religion and government, Sehat argues, religious conservatives mobilized to maintain their power and began the culture wars of the last fifty years. To trace the rise and fall of this Protestant establishment, Sehat focuses on a series of dissenters--abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, socialist Eugene V. Debs, and many others. Shattering myths held by both the left and right, David Sehat forces us to rethink some of our most deeply held beliefs. (from BCPL)
September 20, 2012
This book contained terriffic analysis about religious freedom in the US. What I thought was most impressive is that Sehat is respectful to all sides, he doens't take a partisan view (although you can tell that he tilts toward the secular). Sehat's analysis is a very intellectual and honest view about some of the good and bad aspects of the religious fabric of American culture, and how the struggles and debates that occur today about the place of religion in American life has indeed been going on since the founding of our republic.
January 18, 2013
A well-argued, provocative, compelling, and very important history. Sehat astutely deconstructs the myths of religious freedom used by both the political right and left to reveal the closely intertwined connections between religion and government in America. Sehat uses the history of religious dissenters to reveal the depth of power and control wielded by Protestant Americans to instill civil law with moral orthodoxy. The issues raised in this book remain strikingly relevant to legal morality debates in America today.
Read
April 6, 2012I got through the second great awakening and lost steam. It is an interesting read and his take on American religious "freedom" is pretty interesting. I may come back to it one day.
July 20, 2012
David Sehat is an academic badass.
July 10, 2014
I enjoyed reading this book for a class on religion and public life in America.
October 7, 2015
Only reading this for a class but it was interesting.
July 6, 2016
Sehat is not an objective reporter, but he does well in helping to inform interpreters of American history, both liberal and conservative, that their caricature of America is exactly that.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews