Blasphemy

By: Alan Dershowitz

Narrated by: Knighton Bliss

Length: 5 hrs and 29 mins

Publisher's Summary

In Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence, author Alan Dershowitz proves that no relation exists between the Declaration of Independences Creator and Natures God, on the one hand, and the Judeo-Christian God of the Old and New Testaments, on the other hand. Learn about the religious rights goal to Christianize America by using the Declaration of Independence and arguing that this document proves that the United States was founded on Biblical law. Understand everything from the argument to the documentation that Dershowitz uses to disprove this historical distortion.

©2007 Alan Dershowitz (P)2009 Audible, Inc.

Facing the Facts

This book was like candy for the ears (and the brain). I was curious, because I have only a rudamentary understanding of the Declaration itself, to hear the history and background of both the document and the men who wrote it. Upon being presented with this information it became painfully clear that the religious argument claiming the Declaration as proof of religious intent could not be substantiated.

I particularly enjoyed the author's discussion of the perspectives off Jefferson and his contemporaries regarding religion. Such information is incredibly helpful in understanding their intentions when it came to founding a nation. Most Christians should take the time to read this book before thoughtlessly echoing the lines pervaded by those who intentionally misinform for the purposes of pushing a religious agenda.

What I particularly enjoy about this book is that it does NOT go so far as to suggest that America is a non-religious nation. Indeed we ARE a nation of religious people. However, it rightly points out that we are a nation of many religions, and a nation founded on the idea that each of those religions should be free from interference by not only government, but by other religions. The modern Christian power-grab of the Religious Right should not only be an affront to Non-Religious Americans, but also Non-Christian Americans, who stand to lose their rights as well should the government secumb to Christian rule.

Recommended reading for anyone who enjoys reading about the views of the founders, as well as those who are looking for a defense against the misinformation surounding the "Christan Nation" myth. Listen and be informed.

6 of 7 people found this review helpful

Actually not a bad book

I still don't know what this guy thinks law is founded upon. He says natural law doesn't exist so law is determined by arbitrary concepts of right and wrong?

The Pious Revisionists' Quest for Dominionism.

Would you recommend this audiobook to a friend? If so, why?

Yes, but only if they are unable to read in print.

Who was your favorite character and why?

Thomas Jefferson: Often touted by the political right as an authority with respect to the evils of Big Government and routinely ignored by the same for his heretical writings and warnings on the commingling of religion and (American) government.

What didn’t you like about Knighton Bliss’s performance?

Is Knighton Bliss a person or machine? Without solid evidence of the former it'd be easy, based on his reading of this book, to conclude the latter. Bliss's mechanical text-to-speech reading is often difficult to follow without multiple replays or, even worse, references to the print version. The 'reading' of this title would have been a far more meaningful (and comprehensible) experience if from Mr. Dershowitz's mouth.

Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

Further impetus to maintain a check on the religious-right's unwavering attempt(s) to undermine the wall of separation.

Better editing, please

The reader does a very good job. The material deals with pressing public issues and therefore should be read in a neutral tone; this he does. But when he moves to the next subsection of a chapter and reads the title there's no pause, no notice. It comes at me so suddenly I'm mentally playing catchup. This is not the reader's fault. It's the editor's fault.(I've edited and reconstructed a fair amount of audio, so I know.) Just 1.5 SECONDS of dead air before the subsection title would be enough to alert the listener that a new thought was coming along. It all runs together otherwise. Not good.