The Bible Usury and Debt

Since this blog deals with how Christian morality impacts American law I'll touch on this story. There is debate as to who -- the Christian Left or the Christian Right (or even Christian libertarians) -- best represents the Bible's politics. These aren't easy questions and I'm not convinced any of the sides are "right." I'm certainly not convinced that Jesus' admonishments to feed the poor demands socialized medicine or redistributionist economics.

There are a couple modest positions I've concluded are so clear that they are beyond debate. One is the Bible is anti-usury and arguably teaches, like Islam, the charging of ANY interest (even a "good" rate for borrowers) is a sin. Therefore, if it's a good idea to write biblical teachings into the law or otherwise have the law reflect and not seem inconsistent with biblical morality, high interest loans are immoral and ought to be illegal. Arguably there should be no interest charged on loans. That represents a huge tension between free market capitalism and what the Bible teaches.

The second non-debatable point is that the Bible is radically pro-debtor. David Skeel, law professor at Penn and whom I had at Temple, seems one of the few notable right of center Christian academics who consistently trumpets a pro-debtor tune (to the chagrin of bondholders everywhere).

The anti-usury, pro-debtor stance of the Bible, it seems to me, are two areas where the Christian Left is more biblical than the Christian Right.

Though, I have concluded that the Bible/Christian religion is, at its heart, a-political and compatible with virtually any political system. It's not just Romans 13 (which we've discussed at great length), but also -- and more importantly -- Mark 12:17. When Jesus said "Render Unto Caesar" he didn't refer to the noble Stoic Roman republicans, but rather to the ignoble imperial Roman tyrants.

Appeal to Heaven

    
Among the more than 200 flags owned by the Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York that are exhibited at Fraunces Tavern Museum in New York City is this banner with its decidedly faithful message.

This flag, Appeal to Heaven, was the official symbol of Gen. George Washington's fleet from 1775. It is on display in the Kathryn & Shelby Cullom Davis Education Center for American History at Fraunces Tavern Museum in Manhattan.

The marker next to the flag reads:

Washington's Armed Vessels

This flag was the official symbol of General George Washington's fleet of armed vessels. The fleet consisted of about six schooners which he armed at his own expense in 1775. The tree is the symbol of the Revolution in the north. It is modeled after the tree in which the Sons of Liberty rallied under named 'The Liberty Tree.' This flag was later adopted by the Massachusetts Navy in 1777.

I happened upon this flag almost accidentally one night last month. I was honored to have been the first guest lecturer of 2012 in Fraunces' Special Evening Lecture series, and stumbled upon the flag while looking for a place to drop my coat. Of course I immediately thought of all of you, and snapped the photo. (I'll polish up that lecture, and share it here as well eventually.)

Speaking of Patriots, it's almost Super Bowl kick-off time. Go Giants!
    

Mormonism & America's Civil Religion

In this passage J K.A. Smith highlights a tension between orthodox Christianity and America's Civil Religion:

Some of us Christians have a hard time reconciling the Almighty, all-powerful, law-giving God of liberty with the crucified suffering servant born in a barn and executed at the hands of the elite. Some of us are trying to figure out what it means to be a people who follow one who relinquished his rights rather than asserted them, who considered submission a higher value than freedom. We serve a God-man who wasn’t concerned with “preserving leadership” and the hegemony of the empire’s gospel of freedom, but rather was crushed by its machinations for proclaiming and embodying another gospel.

As I've noted many times before it's precisely because of Mormonism's unorthodox nature (and because of when and where it was founded) that such better "fits" with America's Founding political theology than does orthodox Christianity.

David Rosman's Christian Nation Book

Here are two links on a new, perhaps notable Christian Nation controversy book.

Democracy's Big Day

Jim Bendat's 2012 edition of his book, Democracy's Big Day: The Inauguration of Our President 1789-2013, is now available. His chapter on George Washington's first inauguration, So help me, So help me Not, starts on page 26. Here's a snippet:

There are no contemporary accounts indicating that Washington actually said, "so help me God." No newspapers, magazines or books from the time period indicated that Washington added those words. The first time that anyone ever suggested that Washington had said, "so help me God" took place in 1854, sixty-five years after the event, in Rufus Wilmot Griswold's book, The Republican Court, or American Society in the Days of Washington [page 141]. Griswold hadn't attended Washington's inauguration, but he cited the famous writer Washington Irving as a witness to the ceremony.

Slavery: America's Original Sin?

From Thomas Kidd here.

Gregg Frazer's Book

As John Fea noted, Dr. Gregg Frazer has a new book coming out, published by University Press of Kansas. It is based on his much discussed PhD thesis. I plan to much discuss the book when it comes out. And, cross your fingers, I may be involved in a very cool public event on this book in late spring/early summer.

Gary Cass Contradicts Himself

Ed Brayton makes a point I/we have been hammering for years. If you want to claim Mormons aren't Christians because they deny the Trinity/gospel of grace as Cass does, fine. Just don't then claim America's Founders as "Christians." Certainly NOT the Declaration of Independence whose three principle authors were theological unitarians.

James Wilson & the Scottish Enlightenment

Keeping with our James Wilson theme, I just found this what looks to be very cool article from U. Penn. on James Wilson. I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

James Wilson - Philosopher Jurist

James Wilson’s philosophy of law and nature shows an powerful intellect at work as is evident from the published lectures. While ethics, political philosophy, and law are his main focus, he has an extensive discussion of epistemology. It’s clear that he assumes the reader knows his Locke, Hume, and Reid. Here’s a sample of his complex thought:

Having thus stated the question ― what is the efficient cause of moral obligation? ― I give it this answer ― the will of God. This is the supreme law.

Such forceful exposition and clarity could leave little doubt of Wilson’s conviction. However, a few sentences later he says:

If I am asked ― why do you obey the will of God? I answer ― because it is my duty so to do. If I am asked again ― how do you know this to be your duty? I answer again ― because I am told so by my moral sense or conscience. If I am asked a third time ― how do you know that you ought to do that, of which your conscience enjoins the performance? I can only say, I feel that such is my duty.

Oh, now it’s just a feeling! (Emphasis his.) Perhaps others feel otherwise? Wilson doesn’t go there. Wilson is confident that the “first principles of morals, into which all moral argumentation may be resolved, are discovered in a manner more analogous to the perceptions of sense than to the conclusions of reasoning.” “... right and wrong are ultimately perceived by the moral sense, yet reason assists its operations ...” He continues to explain that our fundamental knowledge of moral law is innate:

That law, which God has made for man in his present state; that law, which is communicated to us by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles, the divine monitors without us. ... As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the holy scriptures, it has been called revealed law. ... But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source: it is the law of God. ...

Nature has implanted in man the desire of his own happiness; she has inspired him with many tender affections towards others, especially in the near relations of life; she has endowed him with intellectual and with active powers; she has furnished him with a natural impulse to exercise his powers for his own happiness, and the happiness of those, for whom he entertains such tender affections. If all this be true, the undeniable consequence is, that he has a right to exert those powers for the accomplishment of those purposes, in such a manner, and upon such objects, as his inclination and judgment shall direct; provided he does no injury to others; and provided some publick interests do not demand his labours. This right is natural liberty. Every man has a sense of this right.

If it is implanted in us does everyone just know what is right? Locke would argue that there is no universal innate knowledge as is evident from different cultures and degrees of civilization. Wilson says:

In the most uninformed savages, we find the communes notitiæ, the common notions and practical principles of virtue, though the application of them is often extremely unnatural and absurd. These same savages have in them the seeds of the logician, the man of taste, the orator, the statesman, the man of virtue, and the saint. These seeds are planted in their minds by nature, though, for want of culture and exercise, they lie unnoticed, and are hardly perceived by themselves or by others.

Seeds? Is an acorn an oak tree? Well, yes, potentially as Aristotle might say. And yes, Wilson is right that the potential is there. But does that get us far? Is it not trivial to say we have the potential to be good men? If we examine Wilson's hints, it is clear where he gets his ethical thought. Here he agrees with Addison.

"It is impossible," says the incomparable Addison, "to read a passage in Plato or Tully, and a thousand other ancient moralists, without being a greater and a better man for it. On the contrary, I could never read some modish modern authors, without being, for some time, out of humour with myself, and at every thing about me. Their business is to depreciate human nature, and consider it under its worst appearances. ...”

Wilson quotes many gems from Cicero including my favorite on universal natural law from The Republic. However, here’s one on civil society:

To civil society, indeed, without including in its description the idea of civil government, the name of state may be assigned, by way of excellence. It is in this sense that Cicero seems to use it, in the following beautiful passage. "Nothing, which is exhibited on our globe, is more acceptable to that divinity, which governs the whole universe, than those communities and assemblages of men, which, lawfully associated, ― jure sociati ― are denominated states."

How often has the end been sacrificed to the means! Government was instituted for the happiness of society how often has the happiness of society been offered as a victim to the idol of government! But this is not agreeable to the true order of things: it is not consistent with the orthodox political creed. Let government ― let even the constitution be, as they ought to be, the handmaids; let them not be, for they ought not to be, the mistresses of the state.

A state may be described ― a complete body of free persons, united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person: it has an understanding and a will peculiar to itself: it has its affairs and its interests: it deliberates and resolves: it has its rules; it has its obligations; and it has its rights. It may acquire property, distinct from that of its members: it may incur debts, to be discharged out of the publick stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals: it may be bound by contracts, and for damages arising quasi ex contractu.

He jumps from Cicero to Locke! Impressive! As much as he pays respect to an innate sense and God's "seeds" he still loves to read his Cicero and Locke.

While I haven’t read every line, it is clear that Wilson had an impressive intellect which he applied to every branch of philosophy. He applied a critical eye to Descartes, Hume, Locke, and Reid--making many excellent criticisms along the way. Quite an enjoyable read!

Craig Fehrman Refutes David Barton on Jefferson

In the LA Times here.

Three New Posts from Throckmorton Debunking Barton

The first is Did Thomas Jefferson give the Jefferson Bible to missionaries?; the second is Did Thomas Jefferson found the Virginia Bible Society?; and the third is Is the Jefferson Bible just the words of Jesus?

Church and State: A Humanist View by Vern L. Bullough

Here. A taste:

There have been two conflicting traditions in the United States about the relationship between church and state. The first is exemplified by the holiday of Thanksgiving, which emphasizes the religious foundation of the United States. The Pilgrim fathers set out in the New World not only to worship as they wanted but to establish God's kingdom. They had the truth and all others were wrong; church and state were one. The second tradition comes from the time of the writing of the American Constitution, when our deistic, freethinking Founding Fathers (no mothers) embodied in the Constitution the principle of separation of church and state.

The conflict between the two traditions should be obvious, and it was neatly finessed by our Constitution makers by more or less ignoring what states did. Although technically the last established religion was eliminated in 1833 in Massachusetts, the lack of an established religion did not mean real separation of church and state. States later admitted to the union had to adopt statutes about religious freedom, but, since most Americans nominally came from a European Christian background, religious observances played an important role in American history. One current example is the delivering of a prayer that opens up Congress, a practice that Free Inquiry's editor, Paul Kurtz, attempted to stop by a lawsuit, which he lost.

I was never more struck by the contradictions in our concepts of separation of church and state than when I lived in so-called emancipated New York State. I appeared several times in court in New York as an expert witness, and each time I was required to swear an oath on the Bible to tell the truth so help me God. I objected to the attorneys for whom I was testifying but they asked me not to call attention to the issue since it could negatively affect their client. I complied. In the university at which I taught in New York, the commencement ceremonies were opened and closed with prayers, although there was a real effort by the clergy doing the invocation and benediction to keep their remarks general and platitudinous. Most secular schools in the United States have Christmas and Easter breaks, although the Easter break is somewhat less common than it was a few years ago. The most secular school I attended was the University of Chicago, at one time a Baptist school, which ignored religious holidays of all kinds but did have its quarter session usually end about December 22.

Mormonism Obsessed with Christ

From Stephen H. Webb at First Things.

A taste:

After all, what gives Christianity its identity is its commitment to the divinity of Jesus Christ. And on that ground Mormons are more Christian than many mainstream Christians who do not take seriously the astounding claim that Jesus is the Son of God.

Mormonism is obsessed with Christ, and everything that it teaches is meant to awaken, encourage, and expand faith in him. It adds to the plural but coherent portrait of Jesus that emerges from the four gospels in a way, I am convinced, that does not significantly damage or deface that portrait.

MLK, Aquinas, & James Wilson

William Allen of Michigan State University ties them together here.

A taste:

We define civil rights in the context of the founding of the United States Constitution, and in many respects they are best understood in that light. The first place in which to find that context is the Declaration of Independence, which declares the meaning of civil rights.[1] Secondly, we have the best indigenous articulation of civil rights from that founding father who also best explained the relation between civil rights and natural law: James Wilson. Thirdly, reviewing illustrative Supreme Court defenses of civil rights can quickly reveal how far the decisions of the justices were regulated so as to tie advances in civil rights to an advance in understanding natural law (even for persons who would disavow reliance upon natural law). Finally, the seminal statement of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” clearly expresses the fundamental ground of equality identified by James Wilson (and the Declaration of Independence) as essential to civil rights; it also invokes the entire sweep of Western reflection on the meaning of justice in such a way as to show the pursuit of civil rights as nothing less than perfecting civil relations in light of natural law.

Jefferson and Religion

Thomas Jefferson (Bill Barker) on religion in America and schools:

Sandefur on Substantive Due Process and Milton

Timothy Sandefur has a new article out in Harvard-JLPP arguing the case FOR substantive due process on philosophical and originalist grounds. It is not, he argues, something judges just made up.

He has a fascinating passage on John Milton. Milton was a notable Whig thinker who greatly influenced America's Founders and whose influences has been much neglected.

From JOHN MILTON, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates in THE STUDENT’S MILTON
758 (Frank Allen Patterson ed., rev. ed. 1936) (1650):

[T]o say kings are accountable to none but God, is the overturning of all law and government. For if they may refuse to give account, then all covenants made with them at coronation, all oaths are in vain, and mere mockeries; all laws which they swear to keep, made to no purpose: for if the king fear not God (as how many of them do not,) we hold then our lives and estates by the tenure of his mere grace and mercy, as from a god, not a mortal magistrate; a position that none but court parasites or men besotted would maintain! Aristotle, therefore, whom we commonly allow for one of the best interpreters of nature and morality, writes in the fourth of his Politics, chap. x. that “monarchy unaccountable is the worst sort of tyranny; and least of all to be endured by free‐born men.” 

And surely no Christian prince . . . would arrogate so unreasonably above human condition, or derogate so basely from a whole nation of men, his brethren, as if for him only subsisting, and to serve his glory, valuing them in comparison of his own brute will and pleasure no more than so many beasts, or vermin under his feet, not to be reasoned with, but to be trod on . . . .

Historiography of Bernal Diaz and the Conquest of "New Spain"

490 years ago, a group of ambitious Spaniards ascended the southeastern slope of the Sierra de Ahualco, a large mountain that overlooked the lush Mexican landscape. Upon reaching the stony top, these men gazed upon a civilization unlike anything that existed in Europe. Tenochtitlan, the native “Aztec” people called it, was a prosperous city nestled neatly into the beauty of the Mexican valley. The panorama of cultivated fields, irrigated by complex water networks was no doubt a charming sight to behold. Towering buildings adorned with gold glistened in the sunlight, enhancing the Spaniards thirst for plunder. Led by the ambitious Hernan Cortes, these Spaniards would stop at nothing in order to seize the riches that lay before them. Unfortunately for the people of Tenochtitlan, these first "explorers" from Spain would turn out to be the beginning of the end for their civilization. Their subsequent conquest and subjugation to the Spanish eventually led to the demise of the Aztec world and the continued rise of Spanish colonization in the "New World."

Over the years the story of Hernan Cortes has been both praised and scrutinized by a wide range of critics. Even his contemporaries were divided over the achievements Cortes had accomplished. Many considered him to be one of Spain’s greatest villains, while others were quick to call him a national hero. Amongst those that rose to defend the acts of Cortes and the conquest of "New Spain" was a poor peasant Spaniard turned conquistador named Bernal Diaz del Castillo. As a loyal soldier in Cortes’s army, Diaz became an eyewitness to the Spanish conquests of Mexico. In the latter years of his life, Diaz wrote his life experiences as a conquistador in his infamous history, The Conquest of New Spain. Though not always kind to Cortes, Diaz gives a predominantly favorable view of Spain’s most legendary conquistador, and the actions of the men that followed him. Over the years, however, the history of Bernal Diaz has been interpreted from many different perspectives. To understand the historiography of Bernal Diaz, a general inquiry into his motivations for exploration, combined with an analysis of how Diaz’s record was perceived by his contemporaries vs. its current historical significance, are essential components in appreciating the historical significance of Diaz’s work.

To understand the record of Bernal Diaz, one must first understand his motivations for becoming a conquistador. Spanish society in the sixteenth century was a world deeply divided by social and economic inequality. A massive number of Spaniards lived in the depths of poverty, expecting little chance to improve their social or economic status. As J.S. Elliot points out, "Cortes, along with the vast majority of explorers, belonged to an overpopulated social class for whom Spain had little to offer." Bernal Diaz also belonged to this low social class. Born in Medina del Campo, Diaz’s childhood was full of scenes of poverty and violence. Having been raised in such an environment, Diaz became acclimated to many of the violent struggles he would face in Mexico. Like Cortes, Diaz longed for the opportunity to make something of himself. The lure of New World conquest became the opportunity he longed for. Historian Rolena Adorno points out that for Diaz, "His primary goal was to achieve economic prosperity for himself and his heirs, and he was fairly successful."

Diaz, however, was not motivated exclusively by economic factors. Upon his arrival to the "New World," Diaz was overcome by the religious fervor that infected most of the Spanish. "Our desire was to throw their [the Aztecs] idols out of the temples, for they were evil and led them astray...we gave them a cross, which would always aid them, bring them good harvests and save their souls." The Spanish were easily able to justify these actions of religious bigotry and hatred. Since 1493 the Spanish (along with other European nations) lived under the delusion that the New World was in fact divinely theirs. With the discovery of the New World, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal decree that promised Spain all the undiscovered lands 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. As a result, Spain was guaranteed its "legitimate" claim to colonize the New World. Queen Isabella even declared the inhabitants of the New World to be her "subjects and vassals."

With such powerful religious conviction behind them, Cortes and his band of soldiers had all the justification they needed to rationalize their brutality towards the natives. Seeing that the Aztecs "eat the flesh of roasted legs of Indians and the arms of soldiers”, Cortes and his men felt it their Christian duty to "purify" the heathen natives and their lands. Backed by the threats of execution, Cotes and his men obligated many native communities to "give up human sacrifice and robbery and the foul practice of sodomy, and to cease worshiping their accursed idols," or, "be absolutely prepared to fight and die." As a result, entire villages of natives were annihilated. As Diaz wrote, "We found the houses full of corpses, and some poor Mexicans still in them who could not move away. Their excretions were the sort of filth that thin swine pass which have been fed on nothing but grass."

The earliest trends in the historiography of Bernal Diaz and the conquest of Mexico have often praised the conquistadors for their remarkable bravery. In the middle part of the nineteenth century, William H. Prescott published his now infamous book, History of the Conquest of Mexico and Peru in which he stated, "The subversion of a great empire by a handful of adventurers...has the air of romance rather than sober history." Prescott interpreted the works of these early conquistadors (including Diaz) in a quasi-poetic fashion. Though occasionally critical of the conquistadors, Prescott gives a great amount of praise to the conquistadors in his narrative. Prescott also credits Diaz for his objective account of the conquest of Mexico. Many of these early interpretations of Spanish colonization were deeply influenced by a Western superiority complex that negated the concerns of native people. Whether in the fictional works of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, or in the words of the conquistadors themselves, European supremacy was asserted to the highest degree.

Bernal Diaz’s work was also rarely scrutinized. Though not published until after his death, Diaz’s account of the conquest of Mexico was taken virtually at face value by the majority of European readers. Even William Prescott rarely challenged the accuracy or prejudice of Diaz. After all, Diaz was "among the writers who defined what was unique about Spain’s early experience in America." His work was seen as central to the historiography of Cortes and Mexican conquest. Questioning Diaz’s work seemed like a ridiculous suggestion for the early scholars of Spanish colonialism.

For the most part, the history of Bernal Diaz remained unchallenged even into the early parts of the twentieth century. Though often harangued on various mundane issues, Diaz’s history rarely received any direct attacks. The only disputations over Diaz’s history centered on various comments that were found to be, "exaggerated or misplaced." The only major issue in the historiography of Bernal Diaz had to do with his clash against the records of Bartolome de Las Casas and Francisco Lopez de Gomara. Both Las Casas and Gomara asserted that the actions of Hernan Cortes and his soldiers were utterly reprehensible, due to their barbaric acts of cruelty during the conquest of Mexico. Diaz’s record, however, seemed to eclipse the histories of Las Casas and Gomara by suggesting that the acts of Mexican conquest were never as destructive as some suggested. In his record, Diaz repeatedly mentioned how he and the other men "tired of war," almost suggesting that they fought because they had no other choice. Diaz also tried to diffuse the notion that he and his fellow soldiers reaped huge economic gains from their plunder. "We captains and soldiers were all somewhat sad when we saw how little gold there was and how poor and mean our shares would be." Of course Diaz neglected to mention the fact that he and others received enormous estates, titles and slaves upon the completion of their murderous rampage.

Recent scholarly inquiry into Bernal Diaz and the conquest of Mexico has made some significant changes to its historiography. As stated before, for centuries the conquistadors rarely received any direct challenge to their legacy. It was not until the latter parts of the twentieth century that the first major attacks to the historiography of the conquistadors were made. The initial question historians made concerning the conquest of Spain was, "is the conquest of Mexico justified?" For the first time historians began to read the words of Diaz in a new light. Instead of interpreting their actions through the lens of European prejudice, the conquistadors were exposed for what they truly were. The conquest of the Aztec civilization was no longer appreciated for its ability to spread Christianity or subdue the "heathens." Instead of being honored for their bravery in battle or glorified for their defense of Christianity, men like Bernal Diaz were recognized primarily for their greed. Though Cortes and his men, "delighted in their new great fortune," which came at the expense of the native people, and after "all the gold and silver and jewels in Mexico had been added together," the conquistadors still could not escape the fact that they were, in the end, thieves and murderers. For the first time, Diaz’s account was subjected to scholarly investigation and genuine criticism. Historians began to suggest that much of Diaz’s work was, "an attempt to keep abreast of the paste of events that profoundly threatened his economic well being." In other words, much of what Diaz wrote was done to defend his social and economic status, not to mention his reputation.

To be certain, Bernal Diaz’s The Conquest of New Spain has played an essential role in the overall historiography of Mexican conquest. It has provided us with an eyewitness account of the destruction, subjugation and assimilation of the native people in and around Tenochtitlan. Though clearly prejudicial and xenophobic in his approach to this historical event, Diaz’s record still remains an important (and hotly debated) primary source document of Spanish conquest. As the interpretation of Diaz’s work has changed over the years, scholars have been able to make significant changes to the historiography of Spanish conquest. Instead of being seen as stalwart Christian heroes, the greedy motives of the conquistadors have been exposed, and the true nature of Spanish conquest revealed. One can only imagine what future historical inquiry will reveal.

New-Old Article By Me

Some time back (2004 or 05 I think), I submitted this article to Liberty Magazine, no not THAT Liberty Magazine which also published me, but the one affiliated with the Adventists.

Well they finally published it. My name is "Jon" not "John" and I no longer teach at Philadelphia University. But I can't complain because they did publish it and I did get paid. And they gave me complimentary copies. For these things I will forever be grateful.

On the subject of the article, you are just going to have to read it. What's interesting is to see how my views have changed in years since. I agree with the thrust of what I wrote. However, I no longer think the God of the Declaration was as strictly deistic as Walter Berns (whom I cite) asserts. I still believe the DOI's God is not necessarily the God of the Bible. It could be. But the DOI's God is more Providential or theistic than Berns intimates. The DOI's God, I have come to believe, is the God of generic monotheism, the one that, as much as possible, is all things to all people. It could be the Triniarian God, a non-Trinitarian biblical God (if that's not a contradiction in terms) the Jehovah of the Jewish people who inspired the Old but not the New Testament, a Providential Deist God, Allah, the Mormon God, the Native Americans' Great Spirit, etc.

On the other hand this is what I cited from Walter Berns:

"The God invoked there is 'nature's God,' not, or arguably not, the God of the Bible, not the God whom, today, 43 percent of Americans . . . claim regularly to worship on the Sabbath. Nature's God issues no commands. No one can fall from his grace, and, therefore, no one has reason to pray to him asking for his forgiveness. He makes no promises. On the contrary, he endowed us with 'certain inalienable rights,' then left us alone, and with the knowledge, or at least the confidence, that he will never interfere in our affairs. Moreover, he is not a jealous God; he allows us—in fact, he endows us with the right—to worship other gods or even no god at all."

I think the DOI's God could be Berns' God. His description does have the barest degree of Providentialism to it. However, it's not necessarily or arguably this God.

John Quincy Adams on Protestantism & the French Revolution

I caught this while reading JQA's letter to his mother dated January 9, 1816 (I added paragraph breaks for clarity):

.... Dr. Price was duped by the goodness and simplicity of his heart, by the enthusiasm of his love for liberty, and by his ignorance of the world in which he lived. His ardent zeal in favor of the French Revolution has shed a sort of ridicule upon his reputation, and his opinions upon that and some other subjects have been so completely falsified by events which have happened since his death, that his very name is sinking into oblivion.

Indeed the Dissenters in this country have fallen much into contempt since his time. Their political and religious doctrines have a tide equally strong running against them; and their conduct, which at one time swelled into seditious insolence, and at another sunk into fawning servility, has thrown them into such discredit, that the church may now, if they please, persecute them with impunity. They attempted here a few weeks since to make a stir about the real persecution under which the Protestants are suffering in the south of France. They held meetings, and passed high sounding resolutions, and opened subscriptions, and sent deputations to his Majesty's ministers, and buzzed about their importance, as busily and intrusively as so many horse-flies in dog-days.

His Majesty's ministers put off their deputation with general, insignificant civilities, which they met again, and resolved to give highly satisfactory assurances of support and interference in behalf of French Protestants. His Majesty's ministers then set their daily newspapers to circulate the report that Protestants in France were all Jacobins, and that if they were massacred, and had their churches burnt, their houses pulled down over their heads, it was not for their religion but for their politics.

From that moment Master Bull has had neither compassion nor compunction for the French Protestants. The Dissenters by a rare notion of stupidity and Jesuitism (for there are Jesuits of all denominations) have denied the fact, and vainly attempted to suppress the evidence that proved it; of stupidity for not perceiving that this must ultimately be proved against them, and of Jesuitism for contesting the fact against their better knowledge, because they could produce Protestant invectives against Bonaparte after his fall, and Protestant adulation to Louis 18 after his restoration.

The French Protestants, like the English Dissenters, have been throughout the course of the French Revolution generally time-servers. Like the mongrel brood of Babylonians and Samaritans after the Assyrian captivity, their political worship has been after "the manner of the God of the land." They have feared the Lord and served their graven images. They hated Bonaparte, no doubt, in proportion as they found themselves galled by his yoke, and they had no gratitude for the protection and security which his authority gave them for the free exercise of their religion and the quiet enjoyment of their property.

But the Protestants had unquestionably been from the first ardent supporters and exaggerated friends of the revolution. It was indeed natural enough that they should be, for the revolution had redeemed them from a worse than Egyptian thraldom. My father well remembers from personal knowledge what was the condition of the Protestants in France before the revolution, and in what sort of sentiments concerning them and their religion all the Bourbons were educated.

The revolution gave them equal religious and political rights with those of the rest of their countrymen. They had been twenty years freely and eagerly purchasing the national property, and among the rest, it appears, had purchased two of the old convents at Nismes, and used them for churches. Yet they joined in the hue and cry against Napoleon after he was down. Yet they fawned upon the Bourbons, when from the shoulders of the enemies of France they were turned off upon them, and licked the dust at the feet of Louis le Desire. As if tythes, and monks, and barefoot processions, and legends, and relics, and religious bigotry, had not been the darling and only consolations of Louis and his Bourbons in their exile, and would not inevitably bring back religious intolerance with them.

Now, this is the foundation upon which the Dissenters here have relied, to deny that the present persecution of the French Protestants has been for politics. But now comes a letter from the Duke of Wellington, formally announcing that it was for politics, and henceforth, instead of whining, and resolving, and subscribing for the French Protestants, the churchmen here, if the coal of the Angouleme fires were extinguished, would lend him a fagot to kindle them again. The Duke of Wellington says, too, that he is convinced the French government have done all in their power to protect the Protestants. This is not so certain. But whether they have or not, is held to be perfectly immaterial. The French Protestants were Jacobins or Bonapartists—nothing more just and proper than that they should be hunted down as wild beasts. At the same time, the ministerial prints are teeming with reproaches upon two of the king's sons for having lately attended at a charity sermon preached in a Methodist chapel, and giving broad hints that the church must be strengthened against the Dissenters.

I'm not sure if I would categorize the FR as a "Protestant" event, but Protestantism certainly fueled its flames.