tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4529759812936971482..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Religious Tolerance in a Christian Nation?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17553657249369883262010-03-14T17:28:45.893-06:002010-03-14T17:28:45.893-06:00Tom, great post.
I'm gradually finding out wh...Tom, great post.<br /><br />I'm gradually finding out what I've been missing around here, and this is good stuff.<br /><br />One quibble, totally immaterial to your larger point: you seem to be reading Sam Adams as crediting Locke with bringing religious toleration to Christianity; I think Adams is merely pointing out that Locke gave a demonstration (likely well-known to his readers) of why that toleration which in America had come to be taken for granted among Christians (broadly construed) should also be extended to all (ir)religions.<br /><br />The demonstration may have been original to Locke, and Adams may have been overlooking precedents, but for my money the decisive presentation of this argument (for the course of evolving American Christianity and polity) was made by Roger Williams, both for tolerance among Christians and for tolerance toward other religions (the only other religion Williams explicitly discussed was Judaism, but his argument is applicable to all non-Christians).Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9367590895562474602010-03-08T19:00:23.649-07:002010-03-08T19:00:23.649-07:00Re: "Dangerous statement and one that underli...Re: "<i>Dangerous statement and one that underlines the need for rights to be inalienable.</i>"<br /><br />In the state we each reside, criminals lose the protections of liberty embodied by the 2nd, and 4th Amendments, and my very well lose their lives.<br /><br />To give a different perspective, I ask; Why should terrorists be privileged with a more lenient system of justice?<br /><br />Consider a rewording of the quote above ...<br /><br />"[<b>The terrorists</b>] <i>came for the trade unionists and I was not one of them so I did not stand up</i>. [<b>The terrorists</b>] <i>came for the Catholics and I was a Protestant so I did not stand up</i>. [<b>The terrorists</b>] <i>came for the Jews and I was not a Jew so I did not stand up</i>. [<b>The terrorists</b>] <i>came for me and no one was left to stand up</i>."<br /><br />The problem is how to determine who is a terrorist. I prefer this be accomplished in the courts. Acts of terror should be treated as criminal acts. The accused terrorists should be convicted in a court of law or released to their home land.<br /><br />I'm also a firm believer that torture is counter productive and should not be used on the innocent or the convicted. While torture in a combat situation may be pragmatically unavoidable, any information provided should not be used against an individual during trial (I'm firmly against the use of torture to secure a conviction, but less firm if it is employed to secure lives).bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48574727859866659972010-03-08T17:10:45.074-07:002010-03-08T17:10:45.074-07:00"We should not sacrifice our liberty for our ..."We should not sacrifice our liberty for our safety. We should sacrifice the liberty of the terrorists."<br /><br />Dangerous statement and one that underlines the need for rights to be inalienable. The founders we praise and discuss as heroes on this site were the "terrorists" back then. Labeling is the first step to enslavement:<br /><br />"They came for the trade unionists and I was not one of them so I did not stand up. They came for the Catholics and I was a Protestant so I did not stand up. They came for the Jews and I was not a Jew so I did not stand up. They came for me and no one was left to stand up."<br /><br />I butchered it some by I think we all know the quote and the spirit behind it. I hope we never forget what gives weight to these words and live to see history repeated in the name of fighting "terror". Nero did it to the early Christians too.<br /><br />King/JoeKing of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55373586190901011942010-03-07T19:23:13.351-07:002010-03-07T19:23:13.351-07:00Tom,
Thanks for clarifying .. now I get where I ...Tom,<br /><br />Thanks for clarifying .. now I get where I misunderstood you. My apologies for being obtuse.<br /><br />Angie,<br /><br />Thanks for the compliment. I also have an appreciation for Tom's thoughts. He and I generally agree but have nearly orthogonal vantage points. I find it quite pleasant when he and I eventually are able to clarify our understandings and (re)discover we are not so far apart.<br /><br />I like your questions.<br /><br />It appears to me that the founders balanced the conflict by respecting a separation between <i>church and state</i>. The understanding of what "<i>church and state</i>" meant to the founders appears to be subtly different than how many understand it today. The founders version was not antagonistic toward religion. It was intended to protect religious liberty, by (in part) guarding against religious tyranny. I think the founders had a great passion for religion and sought to jealously protect it from possible corruption by Ecclesiastical authorities.<br /><br />I don't see why the same ideology can't work for us today.<br /><br />If we are to give up some liberty, I think a necessary part will be regarding our privacy (full body scans, public video surveillance, etc). However, these events don't encroach upon liberties that are enumerated by our constitution. So if the law is to me amended, it can be done by reinterpreting the words under a new context.<br /><br />In 1995 a well respected and senior colleague of mine made a comment about the rising terrorism in the world that resonated with me then and does even more so today (largely because it appears so prophetic). He said (to the best of my memory); "<i>We should not sacrifice our liberty for our safety. We should sacrifice the liberty of the terrorists</i>."bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81279885680877856482010-03-07T17:15:39.352-07:002010-03-07T17:15:39.352-07:00Tom, did you mean to imply that, although the expl...<i><br />Tom, did you mean to imply that, although the explicit language was rejected, the implicit language was necessary?</i><br /><br />Something like that. Jefferson's account of why "Jesus Christ" was not included does not contradict that.<br /><br />We still have "author of our religion."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89517564770657540232010-03-07T14:57:34.210-07:002010-03-07T14:57:34.210-07:00bpabbott,
I always seem to resonate with your argu...bpabbott,<br />I always seem to resonate with your argument, although I have appreciated what Tom and other have had to say and they have added greatly to my understanding.<br /><br />But, what you say here is very true.<br /><br />The question for America is how do we protect our liberties or religious freedom, when there are those who might not thing religious liberty is what faith community is about? <br /><br />We have experiences as a nation violations of public trust in our military installations, and such. So how do we protect and defend without subverting the right of liberty? (I think I have said this before)..Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41789384620681534992010-03-07T11:26:58.077-07:002010-03-07T11:26:58.077-07:00Re: "My comments were only to defend the argu...Re: "<i>My comments were only to defend the argument of the original post from sophistries that seek to obliterate the meaning of every word and every term until it's all meaningless.</i>"<br /><br />I don't think it fair to assert that anyone sought to "obliterate the meaning of every word and every term until it's all meaningless".<br /><br />Rather, I think the intention was to reach a better understanding for what was intended, by the use of the broad language ... And to give support for skepticism of a narrow meaning/intent, which would have necessarily excluded citizens whose religious opinions were in the minority.<br /><br />In short, the broad implicit language patronizes religion (which meant some flavor of Christianity for the majority), while supporting religious freedom, for all, by guarding it from the encroachment by Ecclesiastical bodies.<br /><br />This, I think, is in contrast with the conclusion "<i>... [Jefferson] couldn't avoid using Christian arguments, and that's what got Christians to sign on the dotted line.</i>" Which appears to be in conflict with the historic record. Described by Jefferson in his comment;<br /><br />"<i>The insertion [of `Jesus Christ'] was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.</i>"<br /><br />Tom, did you mean to imply that, although the explicit language was rejected, the implicit language was necessary?<br /><br />Also did you intend the language, "<i>he couldn't avoid using Christian arguments</i>", to imply that Jefferson would have preferred purely secular language (is this what Jefferson referred to as "<i>some mutilations in the preamble</i>"?)<br /><br />Re: "<i>[...] religious freedom was demanded and guaranteed by Christianity itself.</i>"<br /><br />I am in complete agreement with the <i>demanded</i> part. It has been my long view that Jesus died for guarding his religious freedom from the encroachment by the prevailing religious authority of his day. However, pragmatically speaking, I think <i>guaranteed</i> is overstated, given the occasional historic examples of religious persecutions supported by various Ecclesiastical bodies.<br /><br />... now <b>that</b> is <i>nitpicking</i> ;-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14393262084427990672010-03-07T02:26:17.606-07:002010-03-07T02:26:17.606-07:00Now, now. My comments were only to defend the arg...Now, now. My comments were only to defend the argument of the original post from sophistries that seek to obliterate the meaning of every word and every term until it's all meaningless.<br /><br />"Author" meant something.<br /><br />"Our" meant something.<br /><br />"Religion" meant something here.<br /><br />Samuel Adams' quote that Christianity---"church"---meant something here, that religious freedom was protected by Christianity itself.<br /><br />Don't do me like that,gentlemen. The texts, original Founding texts, support the point. They were written carefully, and we just have to read them with equal care.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71496453910397892372010-03-06T19:13:28.422-07:002010-03-06T19:13:28.422-07:00I think the nitpickings were intended (needed?) to...I think the <i>nitpickings</i> were intended (needed?) to clarify what may otherwise have lead to misleading or fallacious implications/conclusions. <br /><br />Regarding <i>sophistries</i>, I recognized the implication that secularism is antagonistic to religion as one example. Another is the extension, that the founders adopted secular language due to a lack of religiousness on their part. A third is the implication that the broad language "author of our religion" was intended to have an explicit and narrow meaning.<br /><br />Perhaps there are others which are not clearly visible form my vantage point.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13812587837060017482010-03-06T07:38:18.252-07:002010-03-06T07:38:18.252-07:00Since the Puritans and others were supernaturalist...Since the Puritans and others were supernaturalistically inclined in their faith, the separation of Church and State would be logical because it meant there were two kingdoms (Luther).<br /><br />Therefore, the naturalist among the Founders sought to bring about a tolerant environment for these kinds of sects to function.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38984866144643559972010-03-06T02:29:52.423-07:002010-03-06T02:29:52.423-07:00What nitpicking are you talking about? And I neve...What nitpicking are you talking about? And I never even mentioned Madison. Has anyone ever said Madison thinks God is not "real." Your responses are non sequiturs. <br /><br />I brought up the quote specifically to reinforce the Jesus reference. <br /><br />However, reading the OP and the comments, I still don't see what your point is, other than some kind of argument against a strawman.cjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02417833183262347020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41802999964519506612010-03-06T00:43:34.562-07:002010-03-06T00:43:34.562-07:00And "divine author of our religion," aga...And "divine author of our religion," again here in 1788, lends support to the argument that the phrase was commonly thought to refer to Jesus. Thx for the support of my original and actual argument, Cartwright. <br /><br />Funny how nitpickings and sophistries unintentionally reinforce the real point, eh?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32534637922669126622010-03-06T00:39:05.409-07:002010-03-06T00:39:05.409-07:00"The divine Author of our religion never wish...<i><br />"The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?"</i><br /><br />This was Madison's argument against [financially] state-supported churches. Also Adam Smith's which I've been meaning to get to, tying the two of them together.<br /><br />Basically, state-financed churches become lazy and dogmatic, and their congregants be damned. As well as the search for theological truth.<br /><br />But for the record, Madison made the same argument against government-paid chaplains for congress and the military. I would not say I disgaree with him in principle, but he lost that round. Even until today.<br /><br />And never---NEVER---confuse Madison's opposition to "ecclesiastical" [organized church] attempts to gain power in the federal government with an opposition to the idea of God. There is not a single shred of evidence in all Madison's writings to suggest that.<br /><br />In fact, his letter referencing Samuel Clarke says just the opposite. Even to Madison, God was a reality, not a theory.<br /><br />Madison's writings against state support of sects are often used and confused for a hostility toward religion, the Christian religion or God-ism. Simply not so.<br /><br />[And if you think I'm wrong about how Madison is misused in this way, just google it. I'd write about it more often, but life is too short and I could spend the rest of my days correcting such errors.<br /><br />Madison had zero problem with chaplains, he just didn't want the gov't to pay for them. He thought the various sects should. A principled and defensible position, even though it lost.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29213727680433618042010-03-05T18:38:59.932-07:002010-03-05T18:38:59.932-07:00Here's another usage of the term that referenc...Here's another usage of the term that references Jesus. <br /><br />"The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?"<br /><br />From the very interesting <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions52.html" rel="nofollow">Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention</a><br /><br />I still don't see what TVD's point might be in regards to secularism/religion and government, especially as it pertains to the current status. <br /><br />(P.S. my word verification was "palin." feh.)cartwrightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53250215624721378832010-03-05T18:23:46.951-07:002010-03-05T18:23:46.951-07:00Good article, Tom!Good article, Tom!Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53523633695562206042010-03-05T11:23:15.330-07:002010-03-05T11:23:15.330-07:00I'll applaud anything that gets us off Calvin ...I'll applaud anything that gets us off Calvin and Servetus.<br /><br />There's another layer or two that we haven't even got to yet.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55002703543771928412010-03-05T09:24:16.258-07:002010-03-05T09:24:16.258-07:00jimmiraybob,
Do I hear applause?!jimmiraybob,<br />Do I hear applause?!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33812052941061933202010-03-05T06:30:31.975-07:002010-03-05T06:30:31.975-07:00Raise your hand if you think that the Enlightenmen...Raise your hand if you think that the Enlightenment was a secular movement.<br /><br />Raise your hand if you think that the Enlightenment was a Christian/religious movement.<br /><br />Raise your hand if you think that the Enlightenment was a broad-based intellectual movement in reaction to centuries of both secular and religious suppression of intellectual expression and advancement.<br /><br />Raise your hand if you think that the religious <i>and</i> the secular (let's call it humanity) were the beneficiaries of greater intellectual freedoms.<br /><br />Raise your hand if you think that the secular can make exclusive claim on intellectual property (i.e., an idea).<br /><br />Raise your hand if you think that the Christian/religious can make exclusive claim on intellectual property (i.e., an idea).<br /><br />Now, as soon as I get back from running a few business errands I'll tabulate the results and come up with the final and unarguable solution to the problem. :)jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80942036732064122512010-03-04T22:41:46.524-07:002010-03-04T22:41:46.524-07:00Re: "However, the prevailing narrative of rel...Re: "<i>However, the prevailing narrative of religious freedom is that it was some sort of secular invention rather than a Christian one, which is my dissent here, and I think backed by the texts.</i>"<br /><br />I agree that religious freedom did not originate with secularism. <br /><br />Ironically, I think that the motivation to provide religious freedom gave birth to secularism. While there are "secularists" who are hostile toward religion, they are misguided if they think <i>secularism</i> is, or was intended to be, hostile toward religion.<br /><br />For example, the Constitution is not hostile toward religion. Quite the contrary. However, the Constitution is a document of secular language ... a secular document with significant religious inspirations and with explicit language for the protection of religious liberty.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47052362699408542362010-03-04T19:30:13.653-07:002010-03-04T19:30:13.653-07:00"However, the prevailing narrative of religio..."However, the prevailing narrative of religious freedom is that it was some sort of secular invention rather than a Christian one, which is my dissent here, and I think backed by the texts."<br /><br />And thus so a "Christian" idea that helped propel us into the modern world totally aligned with the theme of my last half dozen or more posts. Just because ideas like these were used by, arguably, non or nominal Christians does not mean the idea is not part of the Christian worldview.<br /><br />Now before someone says it I know that Calvin non tolerance was also part of the Christian worldview. I think what is ignored is the struggle within Christendom itself to see which view of God and man would prevail. Often times the rational Christian view is ignored by terms like "Theistic Rationalist".<br /><br />Well done Tom I think you are on to something here.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51080466756341811402010-03-04T14:40:17.181-07:002010-03-04T14:40:17.181-07:00Thx, Mr. Reese and Mr. Pitball [altho you may be t...Thx, Mr. Reese and Mr. Pitball [altho you may be the same person].<br /><br />The reason for the Washington quote is that the text <i>explicitly</i> associates the "author of our religion" with Jesus Christ.<br /><br />This is not to say Washington believed that that author was "divine," and certainly not to say Jefferson did.<br /><br />However, it's seems clear or at least likely that "author" meant Jesus to the vast majority of folks in the Founding era, those who signed the Virginia statute.<br /><br />As for Madison's argument in the Memorial & Remonstrance, it's true the various Christians [especially the minority Baptists] ended up buying its logic. However, the prevailing narrative of religious freedom is that it was some sort of secular invention rather than a Christian one, which is my dissent here, and I think backed by the texts.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7263282074608694772010-03-04T09:07:27.318-07:002010-03-04T09:07:27.318-07:00Jefferson's private writings are filled with r...Jefferson's private writings are filled with references to Jesus of Nazareth as this great moral teacher, but 100% human, not divine at all.<br /><br />Washington never once spoke of Jesus by name or example in his personal writings that have lots of talk about Providence.<br /><br />One reference to JC by name and one to "divine author of our holy religion" in a public address, neither of which was written in GW's hand, but both were delivered with his imprimatur.<br /><br />There's really not a whole lot there that proves GW was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.<br /><br />Though he did go out of his way to not say things either publicly or privately that would contradict such tenets.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60203744485365443662010-03-04T06:38:40.682-07:002010-03-04T06:38:40.682-07:00I confess, your proposition holds water when speak...I confess, your proposition holds water when speaking about TJ's contemporary political environment. I wasn't trying to disparage what you've proposed. But, from what I've learned of TJ, he as every politician, was capable of speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, which is to say I go along with Ben, where he wrote,"Jefferson may have intended the identity of the Holy author to remain un-named so as to conform to, and not to offend, the beliefs of anyone/everyone." I would only add that TJ's eulogy written on his tomb stone did intend to address future generations as I suggested. <br /><br />When it comes to Jefferson's personal understanding of the "Holy author," I'm not convinced that he meant to identify Jesus as the "Redeemer of the world."Forensic Pitbullnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16355862417394510172010-03-04T06:25:17.808-07:002010-03-04T06:25:17.808-07:00Madison made the same argument.
An alliance or co...Madison made the same argument.<br /><br />An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance...religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]<br /><br />I believe in the last chapter of Joseph Ellis's <i>His Excellency</i>, he speaks of Washington's personal religious views. Ellis brought up, that from time to time, Washington would mention Christ or Jesus in public addresses, he never once mentions Christ in his private correspondence, ever. Jefferson's private correspondence is similar in the way it seemingly contradicts a few public writings.<br /><br />It made me come to the conclusion that saying things like "Holy Father of Our Religion" is somewhat like invoking the muse in Greek poetry. Whether they were devoutly Evangelical like John Jay or rejected Christ's divinity, as Franklin did, they all used similar language in preambles and closing courtesies.Aaron Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12224055781100615563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81429243940082567402010-03-03T23:33:28.036-07:002010-03-03T23:33:28.036-07:00Well ... if you remove the Christian creeds (dogma...Well ... if you remove the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Creeds" rel="nofollow">Christian creeds</a> (dogma?) is it reasonable to call what is left <i>Christian</i>?<br /><br />If the term <i>Christian</i> is applied too liberally, then the term losses its conceptual value.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.com