Historians, however, have disputed the extent to which the Pilgrims can be counted as among America's founding fathers.
"This is one little pocket of colonial America," says John Fea of Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Penn. He has written widely on America's early religious history.
"It's hard to make the same argument if you're studying Virginia or Pennsylvania or the Carolinas or Georgia," Fea says. "We've taken that New England model and extrapolated from it over the last 200 or 300 years into some kind of view of the nation as a whole."
Fea notes the absence of any reference to the Bible in either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.
"There are a lot of arguments that say, 'This was just in the air. The Bible would have influenced their construction, even though it's never mentioned,'" he says. "But as a historian, I need a smoking gun. Maybe they left it out because they deliberately wanted to leave it out."
Thursday, November 26, 2015
NPR: "Reconsidering The Pilgrims, Piety And America's Founding Principles"
Here. A taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
NPR: "Reconsidering The Pilgrims, Piety And America's Founding Principles"
I expect nothing more or less from NPR.
Fea notes the absence of any reference to the Bible in either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.
"There are a lot of arguments that say, 'This was just in the air. The Bible would have influenced their construction, even though it's never mentioned,'" he says. "But as a historian, I need a smoking gun. Maybe they left it out because they deliberately wanted to leave it out."
I'm so tired of this. Of course it was "in the air."
_____________________________
First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774
The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen.
Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.
Fea's complaint is contrived. The Constitution was an adaptation of existing political forms. There was no society founded in 1776. (And, while we're at it, only two of the 15 colonies in British North America were without a religious establishment).
“America's founding fathers”
At best, the Pilgrims can be considered a fraction of the founding European stock colonizing a tiny fraction of North America, an already populated and settled country, or, what would become the political and social United States of America. Commercial trading settlements and colonial towns and cities throughout the eastern seaboard, the Mississippi valley, and the southwest constituted many different societies and political entities reflecting Dutch, Spanish, French and English ideas and customs.
Disregarding the brute taking of native lands and decimation of these diverse peoples and considering European settlement only, the polyglot of eastern colonies forged the beginnings of a national identity that radically changed all of their multiple societies forever. The Declaration, the rebellion /war, and the Constitution established a new national political order and set in motion a new and unique world order that set itself apart from the Old Europe of kings and princes, ecclesiastical authority and, of course, religiously-based wars and societal upheaval.
If the Pilgrims are to be considered America’s founding fathers then so too are the countless explorers, traders, farmers, adventurers, rogues, scoundrels, sailors, soldiers, preachers, priests, philosophers and politicians that contributed to the whole shebang throughout the 17th and 18th centuries in the east, center and west of the continent. Focusing merely on the Pilgrims – the 50 or so original separatists and the replacement brethren* – as the founding fathers** of America may be interesting but it is selection bias and myth making at its best.
*not to mention the women folk
** a shout out to the founding mothers too
And, two things that were not necessarily extant in existing European or American colonial political forms and institutions were: 1) freedom of conscience, AND 2) freedom of expressing one's conscience. These fundamental freedoms/rights are often conflated to the contingent form, religious freedom. Unless you can point out such an explicit guarantee as found in the first Amendments to the Constitution in a Dutch, English, French, Spanish, or colonial precedent.
To the extent that "founding fathers" refers to those having a hand in the founding of the government of the United States in the Constitution of 1787, it seems a bit of a stretch to nominate some folks who lived 165 or so years earlier. The pilgrims' Thanksgiving celebration was separated from the Constitutional Convention by about as many years as was my birth in the 1950s. Apart from the passage of considerable time, lots of pertinent events and changes occurred in those intervening years, not the least of which were the failed, or at least problematic, attempts at religious governance in some of the colonies and the political disestablishment movement taking hold around the time of the founding.
At best, the Pilgrims can be considered a fraction of the founding European stock colonizing a tiny fraction of North America, an already populated and settled country
It was nothing of the sort. It was lightly populated with disconnected aboriginal bands. Some were hunter-gatherer bands, some given to animal husbandry, and some agriculture - generally an itinerant slash-and-burn agriculture. There were no cities and no division of labor outside of individual households.
David Ivester, you do understand that there is a distinction between state and society and between amendments to the architecture of the state and the erection of new states?
There was no founding of anything between 1774 and 1800 except continental political forms, which in turn incorporated a renegotiation of the relationship between the colonists and the mother country. In their basic contours, those forms were not innovative in themselves. What was was the application of republican forms to an extensive territory.
Certain people have been promoting the idea that in so doing, the politicians of the day manufactured a secular society which really does not exist outside the imagination of a few lawyers and academics.
Unless you can point out such an explicit guarantee as found in the first Amendments to the Constitution in a Dutch, English, French, Spanish, or colonial precedent.
There were competing religious establishments throughout British North America. Prohibiting a federal establishment was utile.
In the air.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/november-web-only/jamestown-religious-mystery.html
"When the English settlers of Jamestown, Virginia, sailed into Chesapeake Bay in 1607, the first thing they did was plant a cross on the shore. They may not have had the same kind of focused religious mission as the Puritans of New England, but Virginians cared about things of the spirit.
As typical English people, the Virginia colonists were stridently Protestant. They were products of the warring worlds of the Reformation. Roman Catholics were the great imperial and religious enemy to most English Protestants. But the recent discovery of a Catholic reliquary (devotional box) in the grave of an early Virginia leader suggests that the colony’s religious story may have been more complicated than we knew..."
Art Deco, I've often emphasized that very distinction, typically in connection with oft-repeated "Christian nation" claims, which generally produce more heat than light for the very reason that what is meant by the claims is not clear. Those advancing such claims typically content themselves with ill-defined, soft-focus happy talk about America being a Christian nation. What for instance do they mean in this context by “nation”? Government(s), society, something else?
It is important in particular in this context to distinguish between “society” and “government.” To the extent one equates “nation” with “society,” whether it is appropriate to label our nation “Christian” (or "secular") may be debated on various grounds, e.g., the demographic makeup of the population. That is largely a sociological or political, rather than a legal, discussion. To the extent one equates “nation” with “government,” it is an entirely different matter that calls for analyzing the legal nature of our government.
While it is much debated in some circles whether the Constitution separates church and state, it is at least plain that the Constitution (1) establishes a government on the power of "We the people" and not a deity, (2) accords that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) says nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) says nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, says nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. The founders later buttressed the Constitution's treatment of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
The founders of course would not establish a federal government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion and inconsistent with the Christian principle that people cannot be coerced to believe but rather must come to God voluntarily. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate from religion in some measure at least, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. It is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people's expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people's values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite--the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, thus, that if Christianity's influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that--and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow "lock in" (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
Does that describe a “Christian nation (or society)” or a "secular nation (or society)"? And what is the import of that label anyway? Certainly, the label carries no legal effect; it appears to speak more to political or cultural interests.
You run on too long and are hung up on cant. Waste of time.
Now, the Irish constitution has the following pre-amble:
In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Ireland, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity6111 and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.
That's a statement of purpose, but the political architecture is that of a parliamentary republic. You're attempting to peddle the notion that it's a matter of great moment that the U.S. Constitution does not have language of this kind in it. And I'm telling you that it's a matter of small moment.
We might, in our time, discuss the whys and wherefores of public policy, most particularly the regulatory aspect of the state. That regulatory aspect is going to be informed by a common sense of moral and ethical behavior, which is in turn going to be informed by a certain understanding of the metaphysical and the value of revelation. Incorporated into the term 'culture' is the character string 'cult'.
Instead, we engage in an inane game of capture the flag wherein one side or another seeks the authority of 18th century politicians for whatever it is it wishes to do, or, more commonly, rule out of public discussion. IT'S ALL HUMBUG.
Post a Comment