Joe Carter has a very apt post on the Glenn Beck event and American Civil Religion. As he correctly points out, the idea of a more generic civil religion that purports to unite orthodox Christians with other religions under God and Country traces back to Rousseau.
Some readers/co-bloggers will disagree and try to save the civil religion under "Judeo-Christian" Providentialism, because, after all just about every citizen back then was a professing "Christian" of some sort even if some/many of them like "Christians" Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin (yes, they understood themselves to be "Christians" not "Deists") didn't worship a Triune God, but a unitary one.
Yet, when it came time to dealing with the one group of non-Western, non-Judeo-Christian types -- the American Indians -- Washington, Jefferson and Madison repeatedly spoke of God as "The Great Spirit" suggesting un-converted Natives worshipped the same God Jews and Christians did.
J. Adams may well have too; I haven't yet found the evidence. But I have found letters of his where he, I kid you not, terms Hinduism and Zeus worship as "Christian principles."
10 comments:
...as an amateur historian, Beck...
I'll assume that this was said ironically.
I also think that Beck's Mormonism plays into this as well. As you've pointed out many times, Jon, Mormons don't adhere to traditional Christian orthodoxy. Beck has, on many occasions, attempted to build a bridge between traditional Christianity and Mormonism/Jehovah's Witness/etc.
As a Mormon, I can tell you that most Mormons have a very unique view of the founders and the founding in general. It's even embedded in our scripture. I'm currently working on a post that goes into more detail on this very topic.
Again with the Adams and Jefferson? They were the outliers, along with Franklin, and unrepresentative of the era.
Yet, when it came time to dealing with the one group of non-Western, non-Judeo-Christian types -- the American Indians -- Washington, Jefferson and Madison repeatedly spoke of God as "The Great Spirit" suggesting un-converted Natives worshipped the same God Jews and Christians did.
Paul the Apostle does the same exact thing in Acts 17, claiming the God of the "uncoverted" Greeks as the real [Judeo-Christian] God.
I mean, if Paul the Apostle does it, I don't see how the "Great Spirit" argument holds any water atall.
22Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
The Great Spirit.
Re: "Again with the Adams and Jefferson? They were the outliers, along with Franklin, and unrepresentative of the era."
Asserting "no it isn't" doesn't do it for me :-(
If Jon's framing doesn't fit ... I'd genuinely like to see one with a better fit.
Regarding Act 17, my impression was that Paul claims the Greeks to be ignorant of God? How is that equivalent to saying the Gods are the same as the Christian God?
One interesting Act 17 interpretation is how far does the reasoning go.
Biblical interpretation, like constitutional interpretation, has similarities. If there is a doctrine which you are "worried" about, you try to limit its effects, not make a general principle out of it. For instance all non-psychopaths want to limit the parts of the Bible where God commands genocide against certain tribes as applying to specific times and circumstances not as a general "principle" to grant the power to wipe out all "enemies of God."
What about the principle of folks who worship the "true God," -- the God of the Bible -- without knowing more about Him?
The example with the Greeks nicely ties together the Greco-Roman with the Judeo-Christian and hence is very "Western" in its application. The example of the "Great Spirit" to me seems significant in its non-Westerness, though certain Mormons or any folks who believed Natives are lost tribes of Israeli would be spoken to by an Act 17/TGS is the same God Jews and Christians worship dynamic.
But how far does this reasoning extend? Who else worships the true God of the universe dressed up in pagan garb? Who are the false gods?
All Beck is arguing for is "individual rights"regarding life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that means that individuals determine their religious identification, if they so choose...and that religious identification comes secondary to civil discourse.
Those that believe in any absolute understanding and primary commitment of such an "idea" are a danger to a free society. And this is why tolerance to such "traditions" are problematic. Every aspect of a person's life is defined for the believer when such a tradition is tolerated. These are defensive to information which would undermine their faith. It is called "confirmation bias".
In America, we do not even begin to understand such a closed society. The closest would be the Amish. And we usually leave the Amish alone. But, what do we do with our value of religious tolerance, when the tradition that undermines our basic American values liberty and individuality? I think we cannot tolerate such.
Regarding Act 17, my impression was that Paul claims the Greeks to be ignorant of God? How is that equivalent to saying the Gods are the same as the Christian God?
"For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."
The Men of Athens already worship the true God, the Christian God, the One God.
"Ignorantly."
No truth claims here, just Paul the Apostle's theology and his argument and his technique, per Acts 17:23. Completely analogous to hijacking The Great Spirit for the Judeo-Christian One God, and likely the Founders who pandered to the Native Americans like Paul did were repeating his tactic.
Hey, considering that the history of [pagan] man was marked more by polytheism, getting the Indians onboard with monotheism was an easier task than Paul faced on Mars Hill. Agreeing there's only One God is a tremendous accomplishment.
In America, we do not even begin to understand such a closed society. The closest would be the Amish. And we usually leave the Amish alone. But, what do we do with our value of religious tolerance, when the tradition that undermines our basic American values liberty and individuality? I think we cannot tolerate such.
That's actually very interesting, Angie, because the other side of the coin is that the Amish pretty much leave everybody else alone.
We accommodate the Amish---to a point, hopefully a reasonable point---as part of our religious pluralism. They accommodate the state in return. I recall learning for a Boy Scout merit badge that the black-and-white Amish have to stick a brightly colored Slow Moving Vehicle on their buggies, for safety's sake.
Still true, as I look it up, after many [!] years since my Boy Scout days.
http://amishamerica.com/do-all-amish-use-the-slow-moving-vehicle-triangle/
For the Amish, that's where the rubber meets the road. Literally!
The question will be just how much what are now millions of American Muslims will demand in accommodation from the state, and how much accommodation they're willing to give back.
I don't think even Muslim America knows yet, because Islam has no central theological authority, and speaks with a multitude of voices. [Not unlike Protestantism.]
Although the early returns from Muslim Britain or Muslim France or the Muslim Netherlands are not encouraging, I hold hope that there is an "American exceptionalism"---that includes American religious pluralism---that will permit us all to live together in relative harmony and mutual respect.
And for the record, I think that Muslim America has done a splendid job with American religious pluralism, and to this nation's credit, vice-versa.
[The 9-11 mosque thing notwithstanding. America has had far greater religious controversies than this piece of symbolic nonsense. I just happen to side against Rauf.]
And since I prefer to keep current events away from our mainpage but am happy to discuss them in the lower levels of our comments sections I do want to note that in Turkey the other day, the Muslim world's equivalent of France's laïcité---the 100-yr-old experiment with Kemalism, a thoroughly secular state---is on the ropes.
I do not necessarily argue that's a bad thing. For Turkey, anyway, which is 99% Muslim. I would not argue that the public's religious beliefs should be frustrated by the power of the state, and in Turkey, the military has often been the tool of that frustration [read the article]. Ain't that a fine kettle of fish.
The theologico-political problem, if you will, Phil. ;-)
I yield the floor.
Tom,
Your point of the Amish submitting to our traffic laws is well taken, and this is as it should be. But, the article where there is a struggle over how Islam's submission to the secularization of Turkey on the head-scarf underlines my argument, doesn't it?
Many that have come out of Islam warn that radicals or true believers want political power to implement their understanding of morality through Shairia. And this is what some fear from the "tea parties", I think.
My concern over the "tea parties" is not their passion and their commitment to their "voice" or their "ideal" of fisical responsibility, but over the lack of experience and preparation to "take on" the complexities of the world on a large scale...isn't this what some think is the problem with our current administration? I think thier "change" could be just as "revolutionary" as Obama's promised change, but on the "right".
I do think we do need to address the "power elite" that has "set up camp" in Washington. The Founders never intended for the elite class to be a self-focused class, using their power to enlarge their power...
I went to the Institute for International Politics yesterday, as there was a presentation and discussion on the Constitution. He suggested that the executive and judicial branches of our government have gotten "bloated". And though he was an "orginialist" he thought there needed to be some changes through amending the Constitution. Such executive power over "war", a standing military (which I do not see we can do without, unless we want to dissolve national sovereignty), and the lack of Congressional responsibility when it comes to declaring war...
I recognize that there is a movement for peace with Islam, but wonder what the costs will be and who is to pay that costs? And will the costs really make the change that is necessary for Islam to change?
Last night I watched a program on the brain/mind discussed by neuroscienctist, psychaistrist, psychologist, and addictions counselor...and they suggested that trauma determines much of our brain neuron connections. The plasicity of the brain was suggested as the "hope" of changing brain structure which, in turn, would change mind....alto much about the brain/mind interconnection is still not understood. And the neuroscientist did admit that even though we might understand the general "disposition" of the brain, that each individual has a unique pathology that might be missed in adminstering the 'universal" solution...this is alway the case whenever we universialize....or generalize..
....when we universalize or generalize "the human being", as we don't even begin to understand "the human person" like we must before undertaking "prescriptions" for change...this is why I believe that liberal democracies are the best for the many and various forms of being in the world...balancing power and structuring government so that the individual can grow "in his own psychological pathology" so to speak....
Post a Comment