Northwestern University law professor Stephen Presser has said that "at first blush, it would appear that none but the truly weird would find these two new volumes ... compulsive late-night page-turners." But I joined him in the company of the weird by marking all the references that could be construed as religious. I began at the outer limits with what I call the "sacral penumbra" of nondescript and rather noncommittal incidental references. (These do not include the more frequent and clear references in the sustained arguments discussed later in this essay.) My marker found three favorites: at least 30 "Heavens," as in "merciful Heaven," and 15 or 20 "blessings of heaven"; there were 15 usually casual "sacreds," as in "sacred liberties." God comes up often, but almost never in biblical terms; "God," we remember, was generic for deists and theists, philosophers and believers alike. In one instance in this collection, one John Smilie quotes the Declaration of Independence on the Creator. Beyond that, in these two lengthy volumes there are about 20 references to God, while the Almighty and the Creator make single cameo appearances. We read at least seven times of Providence; the Supremes are here four times, as in Supreme Being and Supreme Ruler of the Universe; Lord, as in "O Lord!" or "the Year of Our Lord," turns up six times, and there is a Sovereign Ruler of Events, one Grace, two Governors (of the World and the Universe),two Nature's Gods, and, for good measure, one Goddess of Liberty. Whether the general absence of the biblical God is intentional or reflects the habits of the Enlightenment, it is significant.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics
By Martin Marty here. A taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Though the Founders were understanding their faith in natural ways, (via the Enlightenment) they used language to appeal or include those that literally believed in "Providence". As we were predominately a Protestant Nation, there was a tendency toward tolerance, as to religious views.
Today, the question is can we survive "tolerance", when the West's enemy's relgious zeal is intolerant? I don't think so. We have to protect what are "first principles", which our Founder's understood to be the Constitution, which created and provided for the protections of "life, liberty, an the pursuit of happiness"!
Our Founder's believed in the "common defense" of our national interests, which provided and protected its citizenry. Though there was no "standing military", the one we have now is geared toward a similiar focus, as Congress has determined...(and Presidents have ruled).
Whether the general absence of the biblical God is intentional or reflects the habits of the Enlightenment, it is significant.
No,it's not unless there's an adequate explanation. For instance, Samuel Adams was as religious as they come, but also used generic "deistic" language as was the custom of the time.
As for the Founders not mentioning the God of the Bible, I take [the "deist"] Washington's note to the Jews of Savannah as an example of the common sentiment.
May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, and planted them in the promised land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven, and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah.
Certainly Marty has to make a better case against it being the popular sentiment than a contextless count of words for God.
He's known as a theologian more than an historian, but I'm not liking Marty's work so much in the area of religion and the Founding. He said that the Jefferson Bible would leave its readers with something resembling today's Unitarian Univeralism, but that's simply not so. In modern UUism, you don't even have to believe in God. Jefferson, for all his skepticism, is far from that.
Our family has been following this abstract, philosophical and political discussion with great interest because of IT's profound personal implications on Main Street America.
What surprizes me is the seeming inability of highly intelligent and othewise highly educated individuals to recognize how much the common venacular plays into how words are used during any particular era.
For example, during the Founding ERA, ideas were communicated using phrases and terms everyone commonly understood in those days. There were a lot of Free Masons around and the word, Supreme, would have been in common usage, to mention one item.
For present day and highly educated individuals to impose the ideas of current word and idea usage on Founding ERA rhetoric and everyday talk seems disingenuous.
.
I have known many individuals who used religious sounding words and phrases to communicate their thoughts when, in fact, they were hardly what anyone would ever think of as being religious in any sense of the word.
.
True. I heard Gordon Wood last night note that Thomas Paine communicated in almost exclusively Biblical language, although as we know, he thought the Bible itself was fiction.
Still, it was the lingua franca of the times, and this should not be undervalued either. Being steeped in the Bible---or Aquinas or Shakespeare or Marx---gives you a certain way of looking at things, framing the issues, the worldview.
Hence, I argue that even if the Founders rejected Jesus' divinity or even the Burning Bush, their conception of God was still the same as the Judeo-Christian---monotheistic, providential, a God of love and charity but also of justice, one who listens to our prayers, He who not only created us but the natural law as well, who awaits us in the afterlife to judge how well we kept that law.
.
The use of the word, Supreme, in conjunction with other words that generally conote the Christian idea of god comes out of Free Masonry. It can be accepted by almost any religous person in a way that favors their individual beliefs no matter their faith, Christian, Jewish, Mohamet, or any others. So, "The Supreme Architect of The Universe", can be seen as meaning Allah, Jehoval, or any other top diety. No one gets their feelings hurt.
.
True, albeit still monotheistic, if not Abrahamic.
It was after all, a Masonic Bible that GWash swore upon to become president, and which he kissed afterward.
.
I always wonder what others think when they hear the term, Masonic Bible. I have often seen Masonic Bibles in various rituals that are repeated quite often. And, I wonder what it means then, to be a Masonic Bible. Is it the one that is on the altar?
.
My guess is a Masonic Bible is just a Bible own by a a freemason.
,
Maybe, Ben.
I'm thinking it might mean the Lodge Bible. If so, the lodge must have been pretty close to the swearing in place. Was that on Wall Street in N.Y. City?
Some Bibles have a gold imprint of a square and compass on the cover. But, inside they are King James. Although I understand some lodges allow the Koran to be used during certain rituals.
.
Why don't y'all look it up?
Post a Comment