JOhn Eidsmoe book follows a line a well thought out books dealing with the nature of the US government. The book comes to terms with what we were and what americans used to think. I may be bias because he happens to be my Con-law teacher at Jones School of Law

This book is a must read for any person who would desire to understand the importance of Law and particularly for the Christian. John begins with a discussion of how God's Law, as recorded in the pages of the Bible in the Old and New Testament and Creation, is the only proper basis for Man's laws. He also discusses how God's Law gives authority to and limits the laws of men and how to apply that law to everyday situations of today.

Further, John discuses how the American Constitution reflected these ideas and how far we have departed from the precepts written therein. Though it may sound simplistic to many, John argues strongly that the majority of our present day problems can be traced directly to that departure.

This book would be helpful for the person who professes no particular religious preference to better understand how the Chrisian "should" think about and act toward the Law. I say how the Christian "should" think because sadly in our day far to many people who claim to be, and many that are, Christians have forgotten how to "think" let alone act as a Christian should.

In his book, God and Caesar, John Eidsmoe introduces a new perspective to the old question of the separation of church and state. Mr. Eidsmoe presents the idea of "two kingdoms"--the church, and the state. Two institutions that are indeed separate, but they over-lap each other in that there are people who are subject to both powers. For the Bible-believing Christian there is a problem: how to obey the laws of the government even when those might go against the church, and vice versa. John Eidsmoe expertly addresses the situation and arives at a conclusion that no one can ignore. Eidsmoe does not rely on the Bible alone in his argument, but being a attorney who specializes in First Amendment cases he uses numerous court cases to get his point across. This book is a must read for anyone interested in the debate about religious freedom, and for those who simply wish to study how American government works. I give it 5 stars.

Gambling has been a hot issue in nearly every state today. Gambling interests tell your state legislature that legalized gambling will bring jobs, revenue, and prosperity for all. John Eidsmoe does an outstanding job destroying all the flimsy claims of gambling advocates by pointing out such factors as gambling addiction, bankruptcy, cruelty to animals in pari-mutuel betting, how gambling preys upon the lower class as a regressive form of taxation. The book also tells about how gambling at the least does nothing for a state economy, at the worst it hurts businesses. Most importantly is the fact that gambling is linked to organized crime and the mob's insiduous tactics to subterfuge legal gambling operations. This book is well written and detailed, yet an easy read for anyone who wonders what as to how gambling would do to their community. It should be required reading for all state legislators who are struggling with the gambling issue in their state.

«If the founding fathers were to see the hostile contempt with which modern thinkers treat Christianity, I believe they would consider it strange, offensive and self-destructive.» - John Eidsmoe.

An «ordained minister of the Church of the Lutheran Brethren» who «holds five degrees in law, theology and political science» and «serves as a professor of constitutional law», John Eidsmoe is one of the most articulate and learned defenders of the conservative, Christian conception of the U.S. Constitution.

In *Christianity and the Constitution*, published in 1987, he tries to correct the picture of America's founders, founding and foundational principles propagated by secular scholars whom he considers guilty of deliberately ignoring and suppressing the evidence of the crucial importance of Christianity in American history.

The book is divided into three parts. Part I covers the ideological background of the creation of the US system of government, evaluating the respective influences of Calvinism, Puritanism, Deism, Freemasonry and science, and presenting the main ideas of the political thinkers who influenced the founders - Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Grotius, Pufendorf, Vattel, and other defenders of the Natural Law tradition.

Book II, representing about three fourths of the total volume of the book, examines the religious beliefs of thirteen major founders, as revealed in their lives and writings. Eidsmoe's selection - Witherspoon, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Gouverneur Morris, the two Adamses, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman and those two religiously unorthodox figures, Jefferson and Franklin- is unbiased, containing as it does six Federalists and seven Republicans, and «representing a geographic cross section of New England, Middle Atlantic and Southern States.» The author's cautious conclusion is that eight of these thirteen fouding fathers were «strongly Christian», three were «probably Christian» and two were «probably not Christian», though members of all three groups believed in a providential God who intervened in men's lives, in a future life of eternal rewards or punishment, and in the unsurpassed moral excellence of the teachings of Jesus.

This second book must be praised for the fairness of its conclusions. Eidsmoe is not one of those religious conservatives who seeks to turn every American leader into some pious knight in shining armour. His conclusions are well-supported by the evidence he presents, and do not contradict anything I personally know of the Founders beyond the information he provides. Some of the quotes are particularly fascinating. For instance, John Adams's diaries reveal that in his early twenties he was troubled by the possible existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial beings and their place in God's plan of salvation : «[E]ither God almighty must assume the respective shapes of all these different Species, and suffer the Penalties of their Crimes, or else all these Being[s] must be consigned to everlasting Perdition ?» (p263.)

Book III provides an overview of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, stresses the Biblical origins of several formulations and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and concludes with a series of considerations on the evolution of legal doctrine in the U.S., its possible future developments, and the role Christians should play in preserving original intent. Recognizing the importance of a general understanding of the principles of U.S. government, Eidsmoe directs his readers to the primary sources, such as *The Federalist* or Madison's journals of the Constitutional Convention, and the publications of such organizations as the National Center for Constitutional Studies, the Foundation for American Christian Education, American Vision and the Mayflower Institute.

Even though I am no Protestant myself and consider literal Creationism (which Eidsmoe apparently endorses) simply aberrant, I found *Christianity and the Constitution* to be a sober, cogent and well-informed vindication of America's religious roots, written in a clear and lucid prose.

*Christianity and the Constitution* is a sober, careful overview of the historical and intellectual foundations of the Framers of the US Constitution, particularly in regard to how the Christian worldview influenced their view of man, his nature, the role, purpose and scope of government, etc.

Eidsmoe copiously documents his work from the primary materials and related scholarly secondary materials. His case is substantive and conclusive. Were *all* the Framers devout Christians? No. Were most of them Christians? Yes. More importantly, it is documented that the intellectual and philosophical foundations of their worldview and the American culture in general was overwhelmingly Protestant Christian, and this weighed heavily in their work.

Regarding a "reviewer" asserting, and I quote, "Indeed, it was a concession by Jefferson which allowed the word God into our Constitution. Many may feel this is a wonderful book, but that does not mean that it is accurate," one can't help but sense the irony in their statement and their comment regarding accuracy.

[a] Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing or ratification of the US Constitution--he was in France at the time on a diplomatic mission, so he didn't offer "concession" pro or con regarding the inclusion of the word "God" in the Constitution;

[b] The word "God" does not appear in the US Constitution. As such, their comments regarding Jefferson taking part in the Constitutional Convention are predicated upon ignorance, as such their comment regarding Jefferson's "concession" are likewise predicated upon their ignorance of the subject, and finally their assertion that the word "God" does appear in the text of the Constitution also displays they are not only ignorant of the history of the Constitutional Convention and its participants, but also ignorant of the content of the US Constitution itself.

Their review is as such moot and worthless. Read the book for yourself, study its sources and don't permit prejudiced dislike and religious bigotry to poison the well of this informative book.

Christianity and the Constitution by John Eidsmoe is an superb, informative examination of the faith of the founding fathers. In a mire of misconceptions about the common beliefs of the late 1700s, Eidsmoe presents the documented, unalterable truth. This book is a must read for anyone wishing to better understanding the founding of our nation.

This book argues that just because the European conquerers did "bad" things, that doesn't mean they weren't good Christians. The author never gets specific about the atrocities committed by the conquering Christians (enslavement, rape, torture, murder); he only vaguely, infrequently, and euphemistically refers to them as "sins" and "errors." The author writes as if all Christians during the time of Columbus thought and felt the same way about the methods and goals of missionary work, thus rationalizing Columbus and other conquerers as simply "normal" for the time period in which they lived. This just isn't so; not all Christian Europeans felt the same about the Inquisition or the Crusades in the Middle Ages, and not all Christian Americans felt the same about black slavery in the 1800's, and not all Christian Germans felt the same about Jews in the 1930's. Here is a short summary of the author's perspective on Columbus: 1) Columbus was not obsessed with gold; he just had a natural and healthy desire for wealth. Besides, Columbus needed some capital to finance his exploratory voyages, so his need for gold can be compared to a modern academic needing a research grant. 2) Columbus didn't steal land from Native Americans because they didn't have any real (i.e. European) concept of ownership. 3) Columbus made slaves of free people, but that was okay because slavery was widespread in the world, and besides, Christians could enslave other people as long as they weren't Christians. 4) It is true that Columbus forced Christianity and western culture on Native Americans, but as a result, millions of people are in heaven. Need I say more?

Eidsmoe gives a refreshing perspective on Columbus. He does NOT defend slavery, but points out that slavery had been virtually universal for thousands of years, yet it was the Christians who eventually put an end to the very institution of slavery. Eidsmoe rejects the common relativistic idea that all value systems are equally good. He argues, for instance, that the Caribs were better off even if Christianity had been imposed on them than they had been earlier (when they engaged in cannibalism). Eidsmoe also shows that Columbus and Cortez cannot be blamed for bringing smallpox to the Indians, because the spread of disease was not understood at the time. Finally, it is interesting to note that, contrary to the portrayal of the European explorers as incurable racists who could never imagine Native Americans their equals, some Aztecs eventually married into the Spanish royal family (p. 269).

Dr. John Eidsmoe's treatment of Columbus' career (and character) is refreshingly grounded in real history, based upon diligent usage of the primary sources, as opposed to trite, dime-a-dozen journalist-"impressionism" that all-too-frequently foists socio-political opinions and judgmental dribble as substitutes for the hard work of actually digging out and reconstructing WHAT really hapened in world history, and WHY. Cortez defeated the 16th century Aztecs with an army of 99+% Native Americans (i.e., less than 1% of his soldiers were Europeans)! Why? And why is this unusual fact of history a "secret"? Dr. Eidsmoe, who teaches legal history, evidence rules re admissibility, and the like (at an East Coast law school), & has served as an international lecturer on 16th century Meso-American political history; Eidsmoe is over-qualified to screen the chaff from the mines of Euro-American history, and he does so like a judge who insists on discarding unreliable hearsay -- as he weighs the best evidence of what happened in the lives and documented exploits of Columbus, Cortez, and their contemporaries. [BTW: disregard the reviewer who ignores Eidsmoe's treatment of the Vikings and CORTEZ; -- that reviewer apparently skimmed some of the book's Columbus section, found historical info not to his liking, & rushed to (unscholarly) "judgment".] FYI, I have taught political history and international studies at local colleges since 1991, and I routinely use Dr. Eidsmoe's journal articles and his books as the definitive word on topics he has taken the unrushed time, scholarly accuracy, & insightful expertise to cover. Anyone who is especially interested in military issues will be delighted; Dr. Eidsmoe's military background comes through in his analysis and insights into how and why Cortez (and Columbus) achieved what they did. Also, Dr. Eidsmoe's generous inclusion of many extended quotations from 16th century diaries (of soldiers & other eye-witnesses) allows you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions about the trans-Atlantic adventures of Columbus & Cortez. Beware, tho'! Reading eye-witness quotations from the historical record for yourself may jolt a few preconceived impressions and/or grade school-learned stereotypes! ><> JJSJ
(a college professor, part-time judge, & internat'l lecurer)