Law and Liberty has another great one just in time for this July 4 season. It even mentions our friend Dr. Gregg Frazer's work. A taste:
To begin with the obvious: God is present in the Declaration. He is mentioned or referred to four times. He is presented as Creator, Legislator, Provident, and Judge. Men are created equal, Nature is lawful, and both are connected with God and his activity—precisely the activities of creating and legislating. These two features occur at the beginning of the document. The other two show up near the end. As scholarship has shown, the last two references were added to Jefferson’s draft by the Continental Congress. They have the effect of “beefing up” the portrait of the divine. Providence is protective and can be relied upon, the Supreme Judge scrutinizes human activity “the world” over and penetrates to the “intentions” of agents.[2]
Gregg Frazer has called this theological package “theistic rationalism.” Theistic rationalism is halfway between the clockwork god of deism and the Christian orthodoxy of the day; its lodestar is Reason, not Scripture, creed, or tradition. It is a rationalistic religious faith tailored to classical liberal politics, one held by a number of founders, including.
There is a good deal in the document to support this characterization. The Declaration’s deity is very much a political animal. His concern, his norms, bear upon men in political community, not in ecclesial communion. Nor is it just any sort of political community he favors, but one that explicitly acknowledges the Creator’s equal endowment of inalienable rights and is properly established to protect them.
A political animal, the Declaration’s God also favors human liberty. He has created his human creature free and independent, for political and civil freedom. This helps account for the paradox that the signers of the Declaration expressly rely on Providence and the Declaration is a call to strenuous human action, revolutionary action in fact. The reconciliation is found in the fact that revolution is for freedom and independence, the known will of the Creator. God-given and God-willed, freedom must be humanly exercised, defended, and established. In this sense, this is an early form of liberation theology, a sober form, to be sure.
26 comments:
Gibberish. Deism or "theistic rationalism" are unnecessary to explain the Founding theology. There is nothing in the Declaration's concept of God that does not comport with either "Calvinist Resistance Theory"
http://davekopel.org/Religion/Calvinism.htm
or the [Catholic] Scholastics.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6607
Bellarmine: "In the commonwealth, all men are born naturally free and equal." De Clericis, Ch. VII. "There is no reason why amongst equals one should rule rather than another." De Laicis, Ch. VI.
Virginia Declaration of Rights [George Mason]: "All men are born equally free and independent" was originally written, but changed by the convention to read "All men are by nature equally free and independent."
DOI: "All men are created equal."
Bellarmine: "For legitimate reason the people can change the government to an aristocracy or a democracy or visa versa." De Laicis, Ch. VI. "It depends upon the consent of men to place over themselves a king, counsel, or magistrate." De Laicis, Ch. VI.
VDR: "When government fails to confer common benefit, a majority of the people have a right to change it."
DOI: "Whenever any forms of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government . . ."
I don't think it matters what bellarmine wrote. He had no authority and the popes did what they wanted to.
You know nothing outside your Protestant bubble, James. No offense. In your way, you are just as ignorant as your fellow Protestant fundamentalist Gregg Frazer.
Peas in a pod. If you know who the "Schoolmen" were, you hide it greatly. And if you know who Algernon Sidney was, well, we are confident you have not the slightest idea.
Algernon Sidney:
Tho the Schoolmen were corrupt, they were neither stupid nor unlearned: They could not but see that which all Men saw, nor lay more approv'd Foundations, than, That Man is naturally free; That he cannot justly be depriv'd of that Liberty without cause, and that he dos not resign it, or any part of it, unless it be in consideration of a greater good, which he proposes to himself. But if he unjustly imputes the In∣vention of this to School-Divines, he in some measure repairs his Fault in saying, This has bin foster'd by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity: The Divines of the reformed Churches have entertain'd it, and the Common Peo∣ple every where tenderly embrace it. That is to say, all Christian Divines, whether reform'd or unreform'd, do approve it, and the People every where magnify it, as the height of human Felicity. But Filmer and such as are like to him, being neither reform'd nor unreform'd Christians, nor of the People, can have no Title to Christianity; and, in as much as they set themselves against that which is the height of human Felicity, they declare themselves Enemys to all that are concern'd in it, that is, to all Mankind.
Tom, none of that matters. They were corrupt as Sidney said and what they wrote was irrelevant because didn't buy it.
The popes didn't buy it, making themselves a clanging symbol.
I don't think it makes him irrelevant as it would show the idea were "out there." Admittedly the details of medieval law and politics are something I need to brush up on. Someone claimed to me these principles were operational at that time. I am strongly skeptical of such a claim. At least the Papacy didn't seem to value political and religious liberty until rather recently in history. It's possible though that the "state" wing of "church & state" was more "checked" by claims of democracy (people needing to validate leaders) and liberty.
Y'all not getting the point. It was the English throne that married church and state. And opposition to that came from both the Calvinists* and the Catholics**. Deism and "theistic rationalism" come later and are unnecessary, irrelevant to the discussion.
__________
*Lex Rex [1644], etc.
**King James I of England had the "Schoolman" Fr. Francisco Suárez's De defensione fidei burned by the hangman in front of Saint Paul's Cathedral [1613]
"...the Declaration’s God ... He..." - Seaton
The DOI carefully avoids anthropocentric characterization of the deity. The only "he" in the DOI is in reference to the king.
"...the Declaration’s God ... He..." - Seaton
The DOI carefully avoids anthropocentric characterization of the deity. The only "he" in the DOI is in reference to the king.
"Carefully?" That is an assumption not justified by any independent evidence. Jefferson himself had no problem with using "his" in referring to God.
On slavery, from Notes on Virginia:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.
I agree with Tom's first comment. The God of the Declaration is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--a God that most certainly intervenes in the affairs of men and nations. Jefferson may have had some other conception of the deity, but the Declaration was the product of a community that had very different views than TJ.
I agree with Tom's first comment. The God of the Declaration is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"""
But, the ff's didn't say their God in the DOI was Jehovah.
Regardless of whatever personal faith that the FFs had in mind the DOI was written for “Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien,” as well as Spinozists, and Jews, and Agnostics, and Mohammedans , and Zoroastrians, and platonists, and stoics, and Hindus, and nondescript pagans and spiritualists, to name a few. The Candid World was/is a busy place.
People read into documents what they want to read. Using a broad brush approach, when it came to religious reference, was a careful attempt to not incorporate religious exceptionalism or exclusion. As they knew, based on their experience, championing a specific religion - giving favor to one over the rest - would be counter to the political theory being proposed. The DOI is an inclusive document with inclusive, some would dare to say cosmopolitan and pluralistic aspirations.
Blogger Mark David Hall said...
I agree with Tom's first comment. The God of the Declaration is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--a God that most certainly intervenes in the affairs of men and nations. Jefferson may have had some other conception of the deity, but the Declaration was the product of a community that had very different views than TJ.
_____________________________________
July 17, 2019 at 9:41 AM
Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
I agree with Tom's first comment. The God of the Declaration is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"""
But, the ff's didn't say their God in the DOI was Jehovah.
July 17, 2019 at 9:01 PM
Jefferson’s Proposal for the Seal of the United States, 20 August 1776
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0206-0002
Pharaoh sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head and a sword in his hand passing thro’ the divided waters of the Red sea in pursuit of the Israelites: rays from a pillar of fire in the cloud, expressive of the divine presence, and command, reaching to Moses who stands on the shore and, extending his hand over the sea, causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh. Motto. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to god.
Although, I like this connection you made, it's a shame the ff's didn't use nature's God's personal name. That would have given a personal attachment.
Most assuredly many colonists asked the ff's why they omitted His name in the DOI and AOC.
Why in the world would you form a secular national covenant that is a creation of Christian states? It's backwards. The national charter should have reflected the personal God of the states that formed it.
It was a massive mistake with a current national political party that wants to destroy the constitution
Why in the world would you form a secular national covenant that is a creation of Christian states? It's backwards. The national charter should have reflected the personal God of the states that formed it.
As simple as that unitarianism [anti-Trinitarianism] was big in Massachusetts, and between the secularists and Baptists in Virginia there was no stomach for sectarianism either--to tackle the question of God was a needless distraction and obstacle to getting the Constitution ratified.
§ 991. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.
https://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_church_and_state.htm
But although missing from the D of I as well, "Jesus Christ" is all over the founding documents of the Continental Congress that fought and won American liberty. He is not absent from the Founding, even if not codified.
And Story continues:
§ 991. ….It thus sought to cut off the means of religious persecutions, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and the power of subverting the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New-England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, had furnished a chapter, as full of dark bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity have been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.
In other words, Christianity, in the perpetual war between the Sects, had been continually disruptive of the state and, consequently, needed to be reigned in.
And, if the rights of conscience, with respect to religion, is a universal principle, then it does not inhibit the practice of other religions outside of Christianity or no religion at all. Story is emphasizing the stability of the state.
And, if the rights of conscience, with respect to religion, is a universal principle, then it does not inhibit the practice of other religions outside of Christianity or no religion at all. Story is emphasizing the stability of the state.
Story would never endorse the freedom of non-religion mutating into the anti-religion/strict sectarianism we see today.
In other words, Christianity, in the perpetual war between the Sects, had been continually disruptive of the state and, consequently, needed to be reigned in.
Slippery to the point of falsity. The fault is not with Christianity but with sectarianism. But sectarian violence had died out decades before the Constitution.
Even Massachusetts, which had an established state church, became quite mellow about the sectarian thing.
You need to read more Joseph Story rather than a simple parse and attempt to [re]interpret a single paragraph.
§ 986 The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; --- these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience.
§ 992. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity, of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.
The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New-England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, had furnished a chapter, as full of dark bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals."""
The context is the church of England, not Christianity
It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests""""
Story was wrong on this point as was the others.
Story was wrong on this point as was the others.
England fought a civil war over sectarianism, the "Puritan Revolution," which ended up executing the king. Nasty bidness.
"You need to read more Joseph Story rather than a simple parse and attempt to [re]interpret a single paragraph."
I was merely completing your use of a 1/2 paragraph in order to provide some context.
Anonymous jimmiraybob said...
"You need to read more Joseph Story rather than a simple parse and attempt to [re]interpret a single paragraph."
I was merely completing your use of a 1/2 paragraph in order to provide some context.
Um, no. You clearly don't know shit about Joseph Story's argument and even after we educated you about it, you come back in our faces still talking like a Wiki sophomore.
Thank you for your warm and kind regards. Your generosity never fails to disappoint.
When asked by a passerby why he hit his mule over the head with a two-by-four, the farmer replied, "Well, first you have to get his attention."
Post a Comment