The following is a fantastic lecture given by David Holmes, professor of history and religion and author of the book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, which is considered by many to be THE litmus test on the religion and the founders. The videos are not too long but well worth your time. Holmes is a fountain of knowledge and his speaking ability makes this topic very easy to understand.
Part I:
Part II:
Part III:
Part IV:
Part V:
Part VI:
Part VII:
Part VIII:
Part IX:
21 comments:
tanks your info
I don't think the "anti-Christian nationists" can even begin to make their case without Jefferson as their standard-bearer, as if he represents the Founding.
Not nearly, nohow. But to be fair, Jefferson's beliefs [non-beliefs] needed to be accommodated if we were to form a more perfect nation together.
And in fairness, I consistently argue---and will continue to argue---that what Jefferson wrote privately is that what he kept secret during his public life, and what he wrote after he left the presidency and public life don't amount to a hill of beans in the discussion of religion and the Founding.
But for those who care more about faith than politics, that last one is danged interesting.
Thx for your intellectual honesty in including that last clip, Lindsey. You could have left it out.
And in fairness, I consistently argue---and will continue to argue---that what Jefferson wrote privately is that what he kept secret during his public life, and what he wrote after he left the presidency and public life don't amount to a hill of beans in the discussion of religion and the Founding.
I think though, Tom, that you ignore the connection between Jefferson's (and Adams!) private thoughts and the public principles that they posited. AND also the connection between their private heterodoxy and what they DID NOT say publicly. Jefferson & Adams hated the Trinity; they said so privately. That doesn't mean America was founded on "Trinity hatred." But their distaste for orthodox doctrines did help drive Trinitarianism from the Founding civil religion.
And if you look at Washington and Madison, they were as systematically non-orthodox Trinitarian in their public God talk as Presidents as were Jefferson and J. Adams. That's where the meaning is.
So did the very orthodox Samuel Adams.
http://www.usa-patriotism.com/speeches/sadams1.htm
Too much is made of this negative inference, I think.
BTW, Franklin preferred "public" religion. "Civil" religion is more Rousseau, and Lord knows that's not what we had.
Tom,
Did you read John Meacham's book, because he makes that very claim, that we should call it "public" not "civil" religion because the FFs didn't follow Rousseau.
I would agree that the FFs didn't consciously follow Rousseau, but DISAGREE (and expect a front page post) that the political theology of the American Founding was not Rousseau's "civil religion"; it was. Rousseau first posited the concept and the FFs put it into action. Perhaps it was coincidence; or perhaps it was Rousseau's profundity.
And that's one reason why orthodox Christians should be skeptical of a generic "under God" (like in the pledge). It's not necessary to THEIR specific God, but to a more ecumenical God of various incompatible theological traditions. That's why I strongly object to the idea that Jews and Christians worship the same God but Muslims a different one. Either they all worship the same God -- the God of Abraham -- or they all worship different Gods. If conservative Christians and Jews want a play a game saying Allah is a false moon God (when He claims to be the God of Abraham) I can play the same game as well: Christians worship a Triune God; Jews don't. Hence they worship different gods.
You can argue that; again, you start at the top of the tree instead of the roots and trunk.
When Franklin says
"...the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice..."
he's plainly talking about the Judeo-Christian God. There was no "new" God of the Founding.
If other "theological traditions" are "incompatible" with that God, then they do indeed worship another.
Arguably Franklin was talking about the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God -- the God of Abraham.
Why not look at the whole tree?
Perhaps. Islam is sui generis. I prefer not to get into it much, as it's theoretical and the Founders knew little about it.
When we get into Islam's actual theology [and politics, for they are inseparable], complications arise. If Catholics were a threat to the state for their "allegiance to a foreign prince," well, your call.
http://www.crescentlife.com/articles/islam/human_rights_islamic_view.htm
Jon,
Do you believe that the God of Nature, God of the Old Testament, God of the New Testament, and God of Islam is the God of Creation?
I think this gets back to looking at how these men and the common people saw God at this time not so much what dogma they followed. Then you can work your way from there.
Well I prefer to get into it because Muslims are about 1 billion people in the world; they are also a presence in the US.
If active personal God = "Judeo-Christian," it also = "Judeo-Christian-Muslim" or "Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormon-Jehovah's Witness-Unitarian-and some forms of Deism" God. That they didn't know about Islam is irrelevant. They, or at least many of them, held Jews, Christians, Muslims, Unitarians, some Deists and UN-converted Great Spirit worshipping Native Americans worshipped the same God. I'm not going to let religious conservatives of the "'Christian Nation,' sometimes to be called 'Judeo-Christian Nation' bent" get away with self serving sophistry. Like the rest of us, they can't eat their cake and have it too.
KOI,
That's a good question; as someone who has a great degree of agnosticism on these issues, I'm not sure (as a personal question). But in an abstract theoretical sense, one could make the argument that "the God of Nature, God of the Old Testament, God of the New Testament, and God of Islam is the God of Creation" OR one could make the argument that Jews, Christians, Muslims, natural theologians all worship different Gods. Saying things like Jews and Christians worship the same God but Muslims, Mormons worship a different one is unsupportable. And any argument on that behalf is sophistry.
Whatever their thoughts on the Trinity (despite the lack of smoking guns for Washington and Madison) the first 4 Presidents and Ben Franklin, from the best evidence yet to be uncovered believed Jews, Christians, Muslims, and UN-converted, Great Spirit worshipping Native Americans worshipped the same God.
Well, they abstracted the notion of God and religion, but we should not take their pluralism as an endorsement of those other religions as "true religion."
And as much as we'd like to say that America was founded on Judeo-Christian-Islamic principles, a look at the URL above and at sharia's legal philosophy of lex talionis, which cuts off the hands of thieves, we cannot intelligently add Islamic principles to our list.
Tom, Regarding what Fraklin that to be "true religion", I think he correct answer is that he found no Religion to be true.
In his autobiography he made his opinion of Christianity quite clear.
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
-- Benjamin Franklin, from Franklin's Autobiography, "Toward The Mystery"
He also was clear with respect to the liklihood of a change of mind.
"He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard."
-- Benjamin Franklin, from Franklin's Autobiography, "Toward The Mystery"
It is possible that he was associating the Christian Religion with the organized variety ... as he was suspect of hypocrits claiming to represent God, as can be seen below.
"[...] But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who leaves the Gospel for the sake of the Law: A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv'd, and the People of being deceiv'd by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance."
-- Benjamin Franklin, comparing the politicized clergyman with the regular clergyman, a thing which a few have ventured to do in recent times (Ahem!), quoted in The New England Currant (July 23, 1722), "Silence Dogood, No. 9; Corruptio optimi est pessima."
In any event, regarding Islamic principles, I would agree that Islam is in word and action less tolerant of individual liberty. However, I don't see where Abrahamic religion consistently embraces individual liberty.
King asked: "Do you believe that the God of Nature, God of the Old Testament, God of the New Testament, and God of Islam is the God of Creation?"
King, I hope you don't mind me chiming in as well.
In think all of those perspectives on God assert that there is only one God, and that he is the creator.
Jon and Bpabbot,
I think it is the same God in the absract as well. I would say that all of the above would agree on the immutable characteristics of God.(By inference of some general reading and discussion) I think the disagreement surfaces when one gets into the mutable characteristics.
I think I might do a personal study on the former to see where they agree.
Tom,
That begs the question as to whether the hands chopping off for stealing God is the authentic God of Islam. God I hope not! That would be as bad as the stone to death for homosexuality, adultery, and drunken, insolent son God being the authentic God of Judaism and Christianity!
Jon,
Sounds a lot like the "genocidal maniac" that Frazer promotes that had a "plan" for all the Aztecs to die.
Maybe Ed Brayton(he coined the term genodical maniac)is right. OR maybe we are missing part of the story?
KOI,
Bible interpretation is not easy. In part because it says what it says. I shriek from parts of the OT where they talk about the stonings to death; but I don't write it all off because I've met too many decent evangelical folks like Brian, Gregg and others who believe the Bible infallible, and the Good Book means to much to them for me to be disrespectful like Dawkins and Hitchens are at times.
Jon,
But so many think it is being proscriptive when it is being descriptive.
There is no historical evidence that the Israelites ever practiced lex talionis, nor executed the Levitical punishments Jonathan Rowe lists. As K of I well puts it in another context, "eye for an eye" is descriptive of a notion of justice where the punishment fits the crime.
However, since its inception [or from the writing of the Hadiths], Islam has literally practiced "an eye for an eye," and continues to the present day. As the URL above shows, it is prescriptive.
We--or the Founders---can choose to wave in Islam's general direction for its monotheism, but that Islamic principles are to found in the Founding is impossible, as they are of a completely alien worldview.
Post a Comment