Religion in America

David Sehat

If you want to start a heated debate in the United States, just mention religion and the state - then stand back while both liberals and conservatives base their arguments on different views of American history and the role of religion in it.

Liberals might argue that the founders separated church and state. Conservatives might assert that the U.S. was founded as, and has always been, a Christian nation.

David Sehat, an assistant professor of history at GSU, argues that both approaches are wrong.

He's written a new book, "The Myth of American Religious Freedom" (Oxford University Press, 2011), where he hopes to make both the left and the right re-evaluate these deeply held beliefs. Sehat examines law, society, culture and politics from 1776 to the early 21st century to dispel what he calls myths.

"I've tried to write a history that engages in the present, but not necessarily a comprehensive history," Sehat said. "Instead, I'm trying to engage with both contemporary conservatives and liberals who appeal to the past to support their political positions."

The history of religion and politics in America can't be explained in simple, absolute terms, he argues.

Countering the liberal argument, he said that from the outset, major questions about church and state occurred on the state level, and the states connected Protestant Christianity and state extensively, because leaders thought it necessary to perpetuate morality.

And against the conservative argument, Sehat argues that there have always been critics of the role of religion with the state, from dissenters to reformers, who object to the connections because they believed they undermined individual rights.

Throughout our history, finding a middle ground through calm conversation has been elusive. Despite the difficulty, Sehat said, we still need to address the issue.

"The debate about the role of religion in public life is a proper one to have," Sehat said. "But so long as we're making these appeals to a false past, the debate is not going to be helpful.

"If we would change the historical foundation of that debate, maybe we could have a better, more honest and more productive debate, because my standpoint now is that the debate is basically deadlocked," he said.