Outdated by now (the Supreme Court has gone a lot further in mandating deference to religion), but recounts key cases and in many instances talks to people involved in them. Wexler has a very strong, jokey voice that you may react strongly to one way or another, but does a good job communicating what the doctrines were like at the time. ( )

Not as funny as Assassination Vacation, a book that HH draws comparisons to, but Wexler is really smart, really opinionated, and really invested in getting people to understand church-state law better. ( )

A lawyer reviews some of the pertinent church state decisions, and visits the areas where they happened. Although this is a valuable book, the author treats some things a bit superficially, including his discussion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which he thinks is a good thing. One wonders if his opinion on that has changed since the recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case? He also buys into the idea that it was unanimous, which means he didn't research it thoroughly enough to understand the strange maneuvers that were used to get it passed at all. In addition, he does what is one of the most annoying things in these sorts of books - he spends a couple of hours visiting with people, and decides that everyone is likable, and poo-poos the fears of those of us who live daily with these surroundings. He also presents a very superficial - and inaccurate - view of history when he states that without the churches, there would have been no abolitionist movement, no civil rights movement, etc. While there were churches and religious people involved, this totally ignores the very real participation and leadership of non-believers, and fails to acknowledge that many saw these as "atheist" movements. The book itself is written in a snarky, half-serious vein that is fun at times and at times becomes a bit off-putting. Some great analogies - check out the Texas longhorns analogy to the Ten Commandments monuments. All in all, a mixed bag, and therefore not a good starting point for someone really interested in these cases. ( )

This book wasn't really what I was hoping for when I picked it up. I thought it would be an in-depth look of the stories behind some of the landmark cases involving the separation of church and state. Instead this was more of a amusing overview of the law concerning freedom of religion that included a few interviews with people involved in some of the cases. While the author is good at explaining the constitutional law aspects of different cases and is definitely amusing, I felt he spent too much time doing this. I've already taken con law and didn't really care about the legal issues, I wanted to know more about the stories behind the cases. So while others might find this book more enjoyable, I was disappointed. ( )