Scan barcode
mlind20's review against another edition
4.0
A very un-fun read, but a book I probably highlighted more than any other.
How much did the Founders rely on religion to found America in her infancy? As Seidel explores in this book, not at all. The arguments used by "Judeo-Christian" proponents (a misnomer) have no historical basis, as most were fabricated later with bias and goals. He uses extensive sources, and, as written by a constitutional lawyer, it has easy to follow arguments that show Christian Nationalism is un-American.
How much did the Founders rely on religion to found America in her infancy? As Seidel explores in this book, not at all. The arguments used by "Judeo-Christian" proponents (a misnomer) have no historical basis, as most were fabricated later with bias and goals. He uses extensive sources, and, as written by a constitutional lawyer, it has easy to follow arguments that show Christian Nationalism is un-American.
emmaledbetter's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
5.0
jmgustaf's review against another edition
5.0
This was a clear, concise, superbly supported argumentative book. There were some minor points that could be arguable, but none of them were against the main points. The author supported the main points perfectly; it was in his tendency to show that even if that main point was arguable, the subpoint still wouldn't support the opposition's stance that I found arguable a few times. The book debunked so many commonly held myths about the founding of the U.S. and the nature of our government's relationship with Judeo-Christianity (including the misnomer of "Judeo-Christian principles" often used).
Seidel gets extremely intricate, specific, and pays close attention to details in every instance. He also supports his claims with citations and multiple points of evidence. There's really no room to argue his points; except with one void, I was confused about him remaining silent on. He spends a good deal of time discussing George Washington and the first inauguration. He debunks that Washington added "So help me God" to the end of the oath of office, but that only addresses half of the claim. It is also claimed that Washington kissed the Bible, this was not even mentioned. Much of what debunks his inclusion of a phrase would also support that he didn't kiss the Bible, but there are many historians that accept he didn't utter "So help me God," but concede that there's a good chance he did kiss the Bible. The book is so completely thorough and strong in every other case, it makes this absence more noticeable. For the sake of full disclosure, I wish he would have addressed this. He does state in the conclusion that he could not go through every detail - which is fair enough - but that is a detail, at least, as important, if not more so, than the inclusion of "So help me God."
Minor, pedantic, nitpicks aside, the book is more than adequate to debunk - closer to destroy - the myth that it sets out to disprove. Any intellectually honest Christian nationalist with sufficient integrity would have to change positions upon reading this book; unfortunately, they're more likely to burn a free copy than to read it (as evidenced by a preacher that the author Andrew Seidel sent a free copy to). This is a book that every American voter should read and genuinely consider. I am sure I will be reading it again at some point.
Seidel gets extremely intricate, specific, and pays close attention to details in every instance. He also supports his claims with citations and multiple points of evidence. There's really no room to argue his points; except with one void, I was confused about him remaining silent on. He spends a good deal of time discussing George Washington and the first inauguration. He debunks that Washington added "So help me God" to the end of the oath of office, but that only addresses half of the claim. It is also claimed that Washington kissed the Bible, this was not even mentioned. Much of what debunks his inclusion of a phrase would also support that he didn't kiss the Bible, but there are many historians that accept he didn't utter "So help me God," but concede that there's a good chance he did kiss the Bible. The book is so completely thorough and strong in every other case, it makes this absence more noticeable. For the sake of full disclosure, I wish he would have addressed this. He does state in the conclusion that he could not go through every detail - which is fair enough - but that is a detail, at least, as important, if not more so, than the inclusion of "So help me God."
Minor, pedantic, nitpicks aside, the book is more than adequate to debunk - closer to destroy - the myth that it sets out to disprove. Any intellectually honest Christian nationalist with sufficient integrity would have to change positions upon reading this book; unfortunately, they're more likely to burn a free copy than to read it (as evidenced by a preacher that the author Andrew Seidel sent a free copy to). This is a book that every American voter should read and genuinely consider. I am sure I will be reading it again at some point.
arielmerm8's review against another edition
4.0
We read and discussed this as part of our Political Action Network meetings during the pandemic lock-down. It was a good look at the dangers of Christian Nationalists and gave some good arguments if ever confronted with Christian ideologies.
kayedacus's review against another edition
3.0
I don't know if Andrew Seidel chose his own narrator for the audiobook or if his publisher did, but Christopher Grove does a great disservice to the important topics covered in this book by being monotone and seemingly disinterested in what he was narrating.
pandacat42's review against another edition
3.0
It’s most everything you think you’re going to read. For me it was one of those “preaching to the choir” books, so it was hard to hold my interest.
burdasnest's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.0
DNF, but I invested my time in about 2/3 of this book. I have a lot of complicated feelings about The Founding Myth. First, I agree with Seidel's perspective and (lack of) religious beliefs, and am also the type to be open to to the arguments he makes and the evidence he provides. With that in mind though, who is this book for? Because the people who would read this book and be receptive likely already have come to the same conclusions as Seidel and will find the content repetitive. On the other hand, people who are not already on the same page as Seidel will not be persuaded by The Founding Myth because they will find their beliefs attacked alongside the logical arguments that show the founders' clearly intended separation of church and state. Evangelical atheism doesn't lend itself to convincing religious folks to secular arguments.
I've been on a quest this year to read up on Christian Nationalism and womanhood in the US, and have come across so many good books, like Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Cultish by Amanda Montell, and Disobedient Women by Sarah Stankorb, and I can't say I would recommend this one to anyone not looking to make a legal argument about the separation between church and state. If Seidel wanted to reach a wider audience, he should have taken a note from Beth Allison Barr in The Making of Biblical Womanhood and established common ground and empathy with believers instead of demonizing organized religion and putting them off to his entire argument for secular government.
I've been on a quest this year to read up on Christian Nationalism and womanhood in the US, and have come across so many good books, like Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Cultish by Amanda Montell, and Disobedient Women by Sarah Stankorb, and I can't say I would recommend this one to anyone not looking to make a legal argument about the separation between church and state. If Seidel wanted to reach a wider audience, he should have taken a note from Beth Allison Barr in The Making of Biblical Womanhood and established common ground and empathy with believers instead of demonizing organized religion and putting them off to his entire argument for secular government.