However, the book gets at least one thing right---President Grover Cleveland did say:
"All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship."
Very nice. But we need to read the rest of the quote as well:
"Those who manage the affairs of government are by this means reminded that the law of God demands that they should be courageously true to the interests of the people, and that the Ruler of the Universe will require of them a strict account of their stewardship.
The teachings of both human and Divine law thus merging into one word, duty, form the only union of Church and state that a civil and religious government can recognize."
Yes, the passionate do seem silly sometimes, and they often make naive errors, but stuff like the Cleveland quote just can't be laughed away. We should speak seriously of the serious things. Cleveland here echoes one of the key Founding Fathers, James Wilson, who wrote:
"The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other."
Grover Cleveland makes a very nuanced point here, and one well-shared by the Founders---that where the natural law and the Bible come together is "the only union of Church and state that a civil and religious government can recognize."
In these modern days, we have forgotten about even the idea of a natural law. We prefer to make it up as we go along.
But as things get weirder and more chaotic---more entropic---natural law will be the thing that brings us back from the abyss [if at all], and only then will the Bible make any sense in our polity either, something the authors and admirers of The American Patriot's Bible need to mindful of as well.
8 comments:
Well said, Tom!
Thx, Brian. Altho I was sending a response to Brad's post, I also wanted to send a message to "Christian nationists," whoever they might be. Monotheism is the core of Judeo-Christianity, and not only a God who created us, but a God who cares for us.
That and a belief in a "natural law" is our Founding heritage. They shouldn't fuss so much about the rest in this chaotic, confused, skeptical and sarcastic age. They should stick to the basics.
By quoting only half of Grover Cleveland's exquisite observation about the American Experiment, they miss his point entirely.
I agree. Not only do the Christian Nationalists selectively pick data to support their claims, but it's also bad tactically (and biblically) on their part. They should just stick to Judeo-Christian monotheism in terms of the public square, and leave the rest to the church.
Just a general thought, having nothing to do with Grover Cleveland (whose religious faith I know absolutely nothing about).
I think you always have to keep in mind the difference between private thoughts and letters and public speeches and writings both during the founding and later in American history. These guys were politicians who were use to gathering electoral support and protecting their reputations. So my point is this: while politicians may have said things in public, they may very well have not really believed what they were saying and were just attempting to pander to majority opinion in the country to garner support. I have always put more weight behind private words and thoughts than anything public as a result.
I have noticed over time that most of the Founder Father's quotes which the Christian Nation people use are almost always from public speeches and writings. So here, look at who Cleveland is addressing when making these statements (the Evangelical Alliance). In my mind 1 private statement is worth 20 said in public b/c politicians will be more honest in private.
In my mind 1 private statement is worth 20 said in public b/c politicians will be more honest in private.I see the private stuff as far less valuable. It's the public person that's important, because it also tells us about the prevailing spirit of their times. I don't care if a man worships no God or twenty; it's his public policy that matters.
Tom, I can see your point if your goal is to figure out their public policy positions... and not their personal faith and philosophies. But I would affirm that public statements and writings are not the best place to decipher their religious beliefs and personal values. Wouldn't you agree with my distinction and subsequent logic?
But even with their public personas one has to be careful. Remember that Madison supported Patrick Henry for the governorship of Virginia, but not because of all the reasons he said so publicly at the time but because he wanted Henry out of the legislature before the final battle over the Henry Bill in 1784 and Jefferson's Bill of Religious Freedom. So (believe it or not), politicians so mask their true feelings sometimes in their public positions and statements.
Another example concerning Madison would be when he went against his principals and signed the National Day of Prayer and Fasting declaractions during the War of 1812 to help secure his position within his political base and improve his standing with Congress.
But I would affirm that public statements and writings are not the best place to decipher their religious beliefs and personal values. Wouldn't you agree with my distinction and subsequent logic?Oh, yes. I just don't think their mental reservations are important. Indeed, Madison going with the flow on the matters you mention tells us more about the religio-political landscape of the time, the determination of which is our true goal---the forest, not the trees, the nation, not the man.
"Indeed, Madison going with the flow on the matters you mention tells us more about the religio-political landscape of the time, the determination of which is our true goal---the forest, not the trees, the nation, not the man."
Powerful point that I had not considered before in these types of debates.
Post a Comment