Scan barcode
jill756's review against another edition
I learned quite a bit and found many of the chapters interest. The one downside is the writing can be very dry.
zaphod46's review
4.0
Really good book. It has been a long time since I read something scholarly. I liked it.
danchibnall's review against another edition
3.0
This was probably a 3.5. Sometimes the writing dragged on a bit but for the most part it was very enjoyable, mainly because it reminded you that freethinkers have been around for centuries in America, and were shunned and persecuted quite a bit in the early days of the republic. This book was also good at shining light on the separation of church and state in U.S. history. The chapters on the founding, Robert Ingersoll, and the 1960's were particularly good.
skylar2's review against another edition
5.0
This is an excellent history of free thought in the US, from its involvement in the formation of the country (i.e. why God doesn't appear in the Constitution) to various civil rights movements into the present day.
kitty_reads_'s review
3.5
I read this for a Secularisms and Atheisms course. Definitely not one I would pick up myself, but it was fascinating to read the role secularism has played in U.S. history. It was dense and difficult to read at times, but learned a lot!
moris_deri's review against another edition
4.0
In a very plain, easy to understand diction, Jacoby succeeds in reducing the opaque and complex history of American secularism down to a comprehensive kaleidoscope of enigmatic experience. Her introduction on Robert Ingersoll is elaborate yet succinct, from how his worship of constitutional framers in doing away with totemic Christian reference to his revival of Thomas Paine’s freethinking spectre as a heroic icon of secularism of yore. Yet the evocation of more contemporary antagonists such as Ronald Reagan and George Bush in downplaying the role of secularistic forces in paving their way towards political zenith lends us a refreshing impression that there is an incomplete battle between the religious and the otherwise “unchurched”.
Calling it an “unresolved paradox”, Jacoby’s chronological diatribe also illustrates the infiltration of religious fanaticism into the various constructs of the American society, including the justice system (Scalia), government bureaucracy and other public institutions. Jacoby borrows heavily from the experience of abolitionist, feminist and other civil rights movements in the late 19th century to make her case, citing disremembered figures such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and William Lloyd Garrison in order to draw a parallel in how the majority could selectively forget an important contrarian historical discourse for the purpose of maintaining and perpetuating that false Christian flavor in the foundational canvas of American history. The rejection of evolution as a creature of science in public schools for example, was so vehement that the Christians went out of their way to establish parochial schools as a shield against perceived sacrilege. I am still recovering from the mild shock of having to reconcile this historical counter-narrative with my previous erudition (although misguided) of USA’s sociopolitical genesis as portrayed by more traditional sources.
Also of interest is Jacoby’s definition of “freethinkers” which is somewhat liberal, running the gamut from the outright atheist to the not-so-certains, capturing even the watchmaker enthusiasts known as the deists, as well as Liberal Protestants and Unitarians (who are not atheists). She distinctly distills freethinkers as a broad umbrella term encompassing a spacious continuum of freethought that rejects religious hierarchy and orthodoxies, which in my judgement is an attitude that is technically practical considering how secularism and secularization are relative instead of relational nouns.
I can find few faults to discredit Jacoby’s chef-d'oeuvre, notably its attempt to introduce too many chief characters to inject polemical clout into her body of argument without sufficient contexts in spite of their unassailable relevance to her messy thesis. Even if she did provide them, it would still be one hell of a book to absorb in one sitting, which defeats the very objective of defraying the labyrinthine landscape of America’s religious schism down to the most minute details. Nevertheless, the language used is clear and comprehensible enough to sustain interest, although I must admit that I find that some of the chapters suffer from a nebulous trajectory from Jacoby’s haphazard attempt to synthesize too many events from the present and the past in order to erect her story. Overall, this is an excellent book that I would like to reread and be able to give voice to.
Calling it an “unresolved paradox”, Jacoby’s chronological diatribe also illustrates the infiltration of religious fanaticism into the various constructs of the American society, including the justice system (Scalia), government bureaucracy and other public institutions. Jacoby borrows heavily from the experience of abolitionist, feminist and other civil rights movements in the late 19th century to make her case, citing disremembered figures such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and William Lloyd Garrison in order to draw a parallel in how the majority could selectively forget an important contrarian historical discourse for the purpose of maintaining and perpetuating that false Christian flavor in the foundational canvas of American history. The rejection of evolution as a creature of science in public schools for example, was so vehement that the Christians went out of their way to establish parochial schools as a shield against perceived sacrilege. I am still recovering from the mild shock of having to reconcile this historical counter-narrative with my previous erudition (although misguided) of USA’s sociopolitical genesis as portrayed by more traditional sources.
Also of interest is Jacoby’s definition of “freethinkers” which is somewhat liberal, running the gamut from the outright atheist to the not-so-certains, capturing even the watchmaker enthusiasts known as the deists, as well as Liberal Protestants and Unitarians (who are not atheists). She distinctly distills freethinkers as a broad umbrella term encompassing a spacious continuum of freethought that rejects religious hierarchy and orthodoxies, which in my judgement is an attitude that is technically practical considering how secularism and secularization are relative instead of relational nouns.
I can find few faults to discredit Jacoby’s chef-d'oeuvre, notably its attempt to introduce too many chief characters to inject polemical clout into her body of argument without sufficient contexts in spite of their unassailable relevance to her messy thesis. Even if she did provide them, it would still be one hell of a book to absorb in one sitting, which defeats the very objective of defraying the labyrinthine landscape of America’s religious schism down to the most minute details. Nevertheless, the language used is clear and comprehensible enough to sustain interest, although I must admit that I find that some of the chapters suffer from a nebulous trajectory from Jacoby’s haphazard attempt to synthesize too many events from the present and the past in order to erect her story. Overall, this is an excellent book that I would like to reread and be able to give voice to.
imclaugh's review against another edition
5.0
Supes presh and refresh. I mean, if you like that sort of thing.
howardgo's review against another edition
5.0
What a wonderful history of secularism in the USA! I had never really heard of Ingersoll. Now he is one of my heroes as is Thomad Paine. I am looking forward to reading both of them. All fre thinker should read this book!
theartolater's review against another edition
3.0
The book is a history of the secularists/humanists/atheists/agnostics/what-have-you in American history. As a necessary book, it's great - it's filled with a lot of useful information about important secularist types in American history, some of which were very involved in major political and social situations, some less so. The book is a success on that note.
It is more than a little dry, which hurts it considerably. The editorializing was problematic for me, at least - the author definitely, and unfortunately, wears her biases completely on her sleeve. Plus, it does venture into Zinn-style territory at some times, which was completely unnecessary and took away from the book considerably in my mind.
I'm glad I read this, but I'm not 100% sure I could recommend it to anyone in particular. This may be the best book of its kind we can get, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but wouldn't exactly be good, either.
It is more than a little dry, which hurts it considerably. The editorializing was problematic for me, at least - the author definitely, and unfortunately, wears her biases completely on her sleeve. Plus, it does venture into Zinn-style territory at some times, which was completely unnecessary and took away from the book considerably in my mind.
I'm glad I read this, but I'm not 100% sure I could recommend it to anyone in particular. This may be the best book of its kind we can get, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but wouldn't exactly be good, either.
valkyriejmu's review against another edition
3.0
I really liked this book, but this is another one of those books that leads to other books and then, before you know it, you're in way over your head with supplemental reading material.
But it's a good history of freethinking(ism?)and I recall it was a fascinating read.
But it's a good history of freethinking(ism?)and I recall it was a fascinating read.