It is tempting to want to catagorize too simply. Jefferson was clearly a man who wrestled with his theology and gave more than the same passing thought that is afforded by most other people. His work on the separation of Church and State was a product of respect for both, not disdain for either. I look forward to reading this book.

For Steven Waldman.
1. am desparate because it took me 10 minutes to find something like a means to send you an email.
2. I listened to your talk Tuesday on the founding father. I hzve studied the Enlightenment. Thank you excellent comments.
Mind you however in the 18th c the Evangelicas thought and felt like les chrétiens évangéliques Intellectuels (catholiques et protestants) everwhere:
Dynamic christianity always opposes conventional Religion or Christendom. We moderns know that Faith is almost opposed to Religion, so that in the US today the “Religious” (official non believers politically correct pseudo liberals who have taken power in the US supreme court around 1965) want to ikjpose their new State religion by banning the conventional church and state.
We are therefore in the same situation as in 1770: with “reversed signs”.
3. When I came to the US in 1960, I was un intellectuael catholique, like any ethnologist, I was shocked by the difference. IN American Christians were idiot, in the laic France there were intellectuels catholics. I could not find much communality between French Catholics who prepared Vatican II and Ameriands who had no idea of its coming.
When wse baptiased our son in Washington, students said to my wife: what you who are so intelligent are cathylic?
Actually she had left the hitting-nun church and I brought here back into to Church (actually iun Holy Trinity Georgetown, know later for having been banged over the head by bishop0s, there are books about it)”
Conclusion: in 1770 the Baptists weere évangéliques, in 200 some baptists have become Christendom fundamentalistist. Nothing new.
Conclusion: please distingusih between Faith and REligion.
Gauchet: Chriustianity est la religion de la sortie de la religion.
francis

Mr. Waldman,
I just heard your interview on Fresh Air. I have recently read (twice) Brooke Allen’s excellent (content and style) Moral Minority (2006). It struck me that virtually everything you said in that interview about your own book and work was also written by Ms. Allen in her recent book. Many authors can write about the same subject, of course, and the more the merrier on this important topic, but what is it that makes your work different? Anyone one interested in this subject probably knows of Moral Minority and your interview gave me no reason to want to go out and read your book too.

Mr. Waldman, where were when I needed you? I just heard your interview on Fresh Air and it sounds as though your text follows very much portions of a course I formerly taught for a college. I’m an Evangelical, but I found myself on point after point in your interview saying “yes, yes, that’s right”. I had students combing through primary sources of the period for such language to better characterize religion at that time. This sounds like a great book and I plan to add it to my collection

T. Jefferson was nothing more than just a man. His opinions are nothing more than opinions. He was a traitor to England and was a terrorist in reality. How many people went under the lash on his estate and how many good english men died because of his insurrection? Hopefully this man repented of the horror he inflicted on his fellow man in his later years. Once forgiveness was realized, Jefferson arose a new man that moment. Age brings reason to the human mind like nothing else. But always through the power of God.

I have to disagree with Matthew Woods. I too have heard Mr. Waldman’s interview and read Ms. Allen’s book, which I enjoyed. I think Ms. Allen, like many secular leftists overstates the “Deism” aspect of America’s Founders and misses the nuanced “middle ground” that I think, captures the truth of America’s Founding that both the secular left and religious right don’t get. Jon Meacham’s book also captures it. So does David L. Holmes’ and the best book of the genre is probably Mark Noll’s, George Marsden’s, and Nathan Hatch’s “The Search For Christian America.” I think Waldman’s book will proudly stand in that tradition that debunks myths that both the secular left and religious right peddle.
Although for books that come from the secular left, Brooke Allen’s and Gary Wills’ new releases are quite good. For good scholarly works that sympathize with religious conservatism, see that of James H. Hutson, Philip Hamburger, and Daniel Driesbach.

Steven, I caught a portion of your interview on Fresh Air. My personal thanks for your endeavor to clear the smoke that has for too long caused multitudes to stumble into extreme positions due to partial information. Understanding and embracing the principles of true religious liberty is of vital importance at this present time and as the scroll of history continues to unroll, we shall all experience for better or for worse the immense value of this timeless principle. Have you any research on Roger Williams, that excellent champion of religious liberty ? Bring it on.

Mr. Waldman–I’ve been listening to you discuss your book with Terry Gross on her show, “Fresh Air”. Very interesting and very consistent with what I know about the historical evidence. However, you made one statement that had me shouting “aaagggh” at my radio, something to the effect that Thomas Jefferson’s spiritual beliefs would make him a supporter of the modern “Intelligent Design” movement. This is sooooo wrong! Jefferson was what we call today a “theistic evolutionist”, a person who believes that God created the universe, Earth, and life on Earth, using means that can be perceived and understood by studying the natural world. His position would be consistent with that of most major religions today, e.g. the Catholic Church. The “Intelligent Design” movement is quite different–it is an intellectually bankrupt socio/political movement that is trying to replace modern scientific teaching with religiously-inspired magical stories. It is merely the latest version of what used to be called “Scientific Creationsism”, and is at best a form of pseudoscience. Jefferson was far too educated in real science to fall for such a ploy. Please look into “Intelligent Design” carefully and apply to it the same critical faculties you have used in your writings on history.