A taste (quoting Prof. Steven Green of Willamette University):
The presentation also fails to explore the other influences in the Founders’ lives that affected their worldviews and personal character. The members of the founding generation were widely read and drew their ideas for republican government from many sources: the common law, Whig political theories, classical republicanism, and Calvinism. Without question, however, the most influential ideological source was Enlightenment rationalism. The Founders were most influenced by the Enlightenment political writers of the previous two generations: John Locke, Baron Montesquieu, Hugo Grotius, Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, among others. Most of these writers were religious nonconformists or skeptics. Also influential were those writers of the so-called Scottish Enlightenment – Frances Hutcheson, David Hume, and Thomas Reid – whose “common sense” rationalism influenced many of the Founders including James Madison, John Adams, and James Wilson. Secular theories were more influential in forming the Founders’ ideas about natural law and civic virtue than was religion…
Second, the curriculum engages in “proof-texting,” a practice refuted by professional historians. The writers extract selected religious quotations of the various figures without explaining the larger context of the statements (and usually without providing a citation to authority). The curriculum then uses the statement as “proof” of the speaker’s sentiments, disregarding or omitting other likely influences. It fails to account for the sincerity of the speaker’s statement (such as whether the speaker was using irony or pandering to his audience) or whether the speaker likely intended that particular statement on the subject to represent his views, as opposed to other possible statements on the subject…
The additional problem with religious proof-texting is that it fails to explain the role of religious discourse during the founding period and early nineteenth century. As stated, religious rhetoric and imagery were ubiquitous in speeches and other writings because the Bible was one of the few generally available books. The narratives and allegories of the Bible were the stories that were most familiar to people. Unlike today, a person’s use of religious rhetoric during the eighteenth century tells little about his or her own religious devotion. That religiously heterodox figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine employed religious language should warn against drawing conclusions about a Founder’s personal piety from his statements.
4 comments:
The presentation also fails to explore the other influences in the Founders’ lives that affected their worldviews and personal character. The members of the founding generation were widely read and drew their ideas for republican government from many sources: the common law, Whig political theories, classical republicanism, and Calvinism. Without question, however, the most influential ideological source was Enlightenment rationalism.
That's his opinion. He's entitled to it, but I'd love to test him on his knowledge of Scholasticism, Calvinist resistance theory, and perhaps even Brian Tierney's theory on medieval canon law.
Because their "influences" go deeper than the contemporary books they read: John Locke and the Enlightenment didn't drop in from Mars one day in the 1600s and change the world. It was the result of centuries of philosophical and theological thought and progress.
The "judicious" Hooker, for instance:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/06/richard-hooker-in-declaration-of_10.html
As for the second objection about religious "proof-texting," he has somewhat of a point. But as I illustrate here,
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.html
the deist Thomas Paine's heavy reliance on arguing from the Bible in "Common Sense" shows just how prevalent the Biblical sensibility was for the general public---and is a better barometer for the religious landscape of those times.
We just can't ignore it and trumpet Enlightenment! Enlightenment!
Now, Barton may take some of these "exoteric" [facial] statements too far, and attribute them to personal belief, and that would be an error. But the exoteric-esoteric objection is only a technical one, and risks missing the greater truth about the religious conscience of the era.
"Eviscerates" is a bit strong, Jon, and I think you should have backed it up with arguments rather than just an excerpt. I'd voice my objection at Mr. Brayton's, but I find that milieu aesthetically disagreeable and since it's unmoderated, mob-like in its hostility to principled disagreement.
In the meantime, I find "eviscerates" a grenade-word and not conducive to the usual good cheer here at AC.
"'Eviscerates' is a bit strong, Jon,..."
Perhaps. I just copied Ed's title.
Well, clearly we can do better than that, eh?
I agreed with many of the criticisms, but don't give the piece a clean bill of health either. [For instance, there is no firm ground to speak of GWash's "unorthodoxy.]
Once again, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I know I can. I'm trying to motivate myself to come up with original material (I've got that piece on Pickering & Jefferson to work on).
In the mean time, I know that no new posts is the death of blogs, so I'm just trying to pull an Instapundit to keep this blog moving.
Post a Comment