Sunday, August 24, 2008

Comment On John Adams & Rationalism

Reader Michael Heath sends along the following thoughtful comment to this post:

We could say that the Declaration of Independence refutes Trinitarian Christianity. But there’s a problem isn’t there? There were many Trinitarian Christians in the nation who supported the Declaration of Independence, the Revolution and Constitution. And they didn’t understand Nature’s God this way.


To add a couple of quips supportive of the argument that key founders distinguished between nature’s god and the Christian god, consider the following regarding the re-drafting of Jefferson’s first draft of the DofI by the drafting committee, comprised of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston:

http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html

1) Jefferson’s first draft included the term, “sacred and undeniable” – here is the original draft: “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant (sic), that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.”

It is believed that Franklin persuaded Jefferson to replace the religious label, “sacred and undeniable” with the reason/science-centric “self-evident”.

2) Jefferson referred to King George III to the “CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain” in a clause regarding slavery, all of which was deleted in the final draft.

These two changes, taken together, further emphasize the god of nature rather than the Christian God at least in terms of what Jefferson believed.

I agree that many of the founders and certainly many of the colonialists who signed on to revolt against Britain would not have subscribed to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin’s theology and they certainly wouldn’t have gained a consensus regarding his attack on slavery. However, there is a natural progression regarding the framers’ contributions regarding the nature of God from the DofI to what we ended up with in the Constitution.

When I was at Independence Hall this past July, there was a little skit that evening that focused on only one issue, a three man fictionalized play where Franklin convinced Jefferson to remove “sacred and undeniable”, where the actor playing Dr. Franklin made a short, but very eloquent speech on why “self-evident” was so much more fitting relative to their shared religious and political philosophies. There were some very red faces in the audiences; I was beaming.

12 comments:

bpabbott said...

Jon: "[...] the actor playing Dr. Franklin made a short, but very eloquent speech on why “self-evident” was so much more fitting relative to their shared religious and political philosophies. There were some very red faces in the audiences [...]"

I've never grasped why some find personal inspection and the application of reason by the individual (other than themselves) to be so objectionable.

If anyone has a perspective on that, please offer it.

In any event, I envy you Jon .... wished I was there ;-)

Jonathan Rowe said...

Ben,

Very nice. However, the italicized prose were the words of Michael Heath, not mine.

bpabbott said...

opps ... my bad. :-(

The formating confused me. When Michael quoted you it appeared to me you were quoting him :-(

Wouldn't it be cool if Google let you <blockquote> inside another <blockquote> ;-)

In any event: I envy you Michael .... wished I was there ;-)

Tom Van Dyke said...

Anybody there notice what's written on the Liberty Bell?

Hehe.

;-[D>

bpabbott said...

Tom: Anybody there notice what's written on the Liberty Bell?

Its been a while since I bothered to look into that. Good thing Wikipedia is available now!

The Wikipedia article claims the inscription is ...

-----------------------
Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV X
By Order of the ASSEMBLY of the Province of PENSYLVANIA for the State House in Philada
Pass and Stow
Philada
MDCCLIII
-----------------------

and adds ...

-----------------------
The source of the inscription is Leviticus 25:10, which reads "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." The inscription was intended to mark the 50th anniversary of William Penn's Charter of Privileges of 1701.
-----------------------

For reference/context the Liberty Bell was ordered by Pennsylvania (1745) 44 years before the Bill of Rights was introduced (1789) by James Madison to the United States Congress, and 121 years before the 14th Amendment was introduced in1866.

In any event, the Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges was replaced by the Pennsylvania State Constitution of 1776. For those interested in reading the entire text, it can be found here. If you do, you'll notice that atheists had no rights in the Pennsylvania of 1776 :-(

Good thing I live in a place and time more consistent with my nature and principles :-)

Tom Van Dyke said...

But Independence Hall is supported by taxpayer dollars, is it not?

Surely in this place and time more consistent with your nature and principles, the Bill of Rights and Amendment XIV require us to haul the Liberty Bell out to the dumpster, eh?

Jonathan Rowe said...

I am more interesting in exploring how the Liberty Bell distorts the authentic message of Leviticus which it quotes.

bpabbott said...

Tom: >> But Independence Hall is supported by taxpayer dollars, is it not?<<

It's history Tom. That it is religious in nature is irrelevant.

Perhaps its just me ... but secularism doesn't seek to purge religion from today, tomorrow, and yesterday. I view secular as a adjective not an ideology.

That said, I do think there is great value in expressing ideas using secular language so that it is neutral to all religious perspectives ... and to the perspectives of those sans religion.

bpabbott said...

Jon: >>I am more interesting in exploring how the Liberty Bell distorts the authentic message of Leviticus which it quotes.<<

Crap ... I'm going to have to go read all of it now :-(

... ok it starts out with Moses instructing the Israelites how to offer an animal sacrifice for the LORD.

... opps, sorry wrong chapter ;-)

Having read through Leviticus 25:1-55, I can say that the endured servitude has some small conflict with liberty ;-)

Tom Van Dyke said...

It's history Tom. That it is religious in nature is irrelevant.

Perhaps its just me ... but secularism doesn't seek to purge religion from today, tomorrow, and yesterday.


Oh, I wish that were true, Ben. Merry Christmas, and God Bless America.

bpabbott said...

Tom: >>Oh, I wish that were true, Ben. Merry Christmas, and God Bless America.<<

Cute :-)

I grant you that some "secularists" do seek to purge religion entirely from the public square, but would require that religion be defined in such a simplistic or narrow way that it could hardly be called religion.

However, I will also point out that "Happy Holidays" is *not* an assault on religion or Christianity ... no more so than snarfing a chocolate ice cream cone is an assault on vanilla ;-)

If that doesn't make sense, I'll add that the use of the expression "Merry Christmas", by any citizen, is in no way an affront to secularism (at least in my sense of the word).

My view of secularism respects the law and government actions that have impact on individuals. For example the Constitution is secular, but there is no proper (dare I say secular) motive to insist that the sentiments and personal expressions of those in the government also be sans religion.

Regarding "God Bless America" and such, I doesn't bother me one bit (well except for the air of American arrogance it carries, but arrogance is not unique to America ... so no big deal)

... well actually it does bother me if someone offers such a sentiment on *my* behalf. If any individual wishes to express his sentiments in that way, great! But it is improper to express such on behalf of those who do not subscribe to such sentiments (which includes more monotheists and atheists).

Tom Van Dyke said...

For example the Constitution is secular, but there is no proper (dare I say secular) motive to insist that the sentiments and personal expressions of those in the government also be sans religion.

Dunno, Ben. You could have said that in the comments on Lindsey's recent Saddleback post.

Believe me, I defend a lot of sincerely professed nonsense out of the principle that people are allowed to believe stupid shit. I'm a tolerant guy, but Lord knows it ain't easy.