tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5805582812770283078..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Michael Novak Replies to MeBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46833815558288851572009-02-10T10:15:00.000-07:002009-02-10T10:15:00.000-07:00Jon:Marshall was a theological unitarian. When he ...Jon:Marshall was a theological unitarian. When he said "Christianity" he meant something that was generic and nominal, something that had nothing to do with the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible.><BR/><BR/>Come on there Johnny boy! Where are those quotes from Marshall on fallibility of the Bible?Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11367348948677263322009-02-09T20:52:00.000-07:002009-02-09T20:52:00.000-07:00The framers used orthodox words, you aren't aware ...<I>The framers used orthodox words, you aren't aware of.</I><BR/><BR/>Nope. They used either generic God words or generic "Christian" words consistent with the "Christianity" of Jefferson, J. Adams, Marshall, et al.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88059609843562081892009-02-09T18:40:00.000-07:002009-02-09T18:40:00.000-07:00Jon:Marshall was a theological unitarian. When he ...Jon:<I>Marshall was a theological unitarian. When he said "Christianity" he meant something that was generic and nominal, something that had nothing to do with the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible</I>.<BR/><BR/>Fair enough, post a quote of Marshall affirming the bible fallible, and I'll concede. Let's see those quotes from Marshall. <BR/><BR/>Jon:<I>I have yet to see you conceded that "civil Christianity" as the Founders understood the concept was a "Christian" theology stripped of its orthodox doctrines</I>.<BR/><BR/>The framers used orthodox words, you aren't aware of.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37348469546265693252009-02-09T17:42:00.000-07:002009-02-09T17:42:00.000-07:00Religion and Christianity are the same, to the peo...<I>Religion and Christianity are the same, to the people of 18th century america unless specifically enumerated.</I><BR/><BR/>Nope. Sorry. You don't get to draw conclusions that form the burdens on proof in this debate based on out of context quotations which you probably don't even fully understand.<BR/><BR/>Marshall was a theological unitarian. When he said "Christianity" he meant something that was generic and nominal, something that had nothing to do with the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible. I have yet to see you conceded that "civil Christianity" as the Founders understood the concept was a "Christian" theology stripped of its orthodox doctrines. At least Kristo M., someone with whom I often strongly disagree, seems to recognize this dynamic.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35935487101724698882009-02-09T13:26:00.000-07:002009-02-09T13:26:00.000-07:00Let's make this clear:"The American population is ...Let's make this clear:<BR/><BR/>"The American population is entirely Christian, and <B>with us Christianity and Religion are identified</B>. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it." [bold face mine]<BR/><BR/>- Chief Justice John Marshall to Jasper Adams on May 9, 1833.<BR/><BR/>Religion and Christianity are the same, to the people of 18th century america unless specifically enumerated.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16272651814268415892009-02-09T13:23:00.000-07:002009-02-09T13:23:00.000-07:00Jon:Washington noted the most important aspect abo...Jon:<I>Washington noted the most important aspect about "religion" is the morality it produces (as opposed to the souls it saves)</I>.<BR/><BR/>Where does Washington claim morality was more important than salvation? <BR/><BR/> Jon:<I>And Washington specifically chose to use the term "religion" absent the qualifier "Christian" there, which again hints towards a belief that all world religions, so long as they produce morality, are sound and can support republican governments</I>.<BR/><BR/>The nation was entirely Christian, making no difference to use the qualifier "Christian." The result does not follow the argument:<BR/><BR/>"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and <B>above all, the religion of Jesus Christ</B>. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it." [bold face mine]<BR/><BR/> - SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE CHIEFS<BR/>Head Quarters, Middle Brook, May 12, 1779.<BR/><BR/>To Washington, Jesus was taught in the schools more than anything else.<BR/><BR/>"The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."<BR/><BR/> - Chief Justice John Marshall to Jasper Adams on May 9, 1833.<BR/><BR/>Jon:<I>For a thousand and some hundred years, Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) theologians who knew the Bible as well as anyone did not interpret the good book in this manner. Augustine...Aquinas...Luther...Calvin? None of these men believed in "the free conscience of the free person in the free community,..." Indeed, Samuel Rutherford, Calvinist author of "Lex Rex," which supposedly influenced our Revolution, said the following about the execution of Michael Servetus</I>:<BR/><BR/>Here's another fallacy, no? Misconstueing (sp)freedom of conscience with blasphemy? Blasphemy was a crime. All the reformers believed in freedom of conscience.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43295496870586807792009-02-09T00:21:00.000-07:002009-02-09T00:21:00.000-07:00Yes and no. I was reading through Locke on natura...Yes and no. I was reading through <A HREF="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/" REL="nofollow">Locke on natural law</A>, and here's the thing: Perhaps the Straussians are correct that Locke---upon very careful reading---puts natural law to the sword. <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=8W9T7-PFucQC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=grotius+natural+law+god&source=web&ots=H8UldNITcz&sig=a1CTjNu_hi9w9SHE4vKlv-CnwEg&hl=en&ei=jpePSaCZOJGUsAP9y6iBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA217,M1" REL="nofollow">Michael Zuckert here, for instance.</A><BR/><BR/>However, there are other interpretations. As the link above from the <I>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</I> notes,<BR/><BR/><I>[Jeremy] Waldron, in his most recent work on Locke, explores the opposite claim: that Locke's theology actually provides a more solid basis for his premise of political equality than do contemporary secular approaches that tend to simply assert equality.</I><BR/><BR/>...which takes Locke's use of Christianity in his theories as quite sincere. And the above is an argument I frequently make, about the fundamental equality of man being grounded in Christian thought.<BR/><BR/>Which brings us again to the question in the history of ideas, which I think best suits the political-historical angle, of whether our first concern should be how ideas were received and put into practice. Locke's Christianity was certainly taken as sincere by Sam Adams and James Wilson, and I suggest that their view was the majority view.<BR/><BR/>As for the "Christian Nationists" you speak of and oppose, I don't know if they can all be put into one tidy neck for you to wring.<BR/><BR/>;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91833946513634163532009-02-08T19:21:00.000-07:002009-02-08T19:21:00.000-07:00Tom,But let me note that I am open to the idea tha...Tom,<BR/><BR/>But let me note that I am open to the idea that what the key FFs and the philosophers they followed believed in could have been an Aristotelian-Thomistic endeavor. But, I still think the "Christian Nationalists" would need to appreciate how these truths derive from OUTSIDE the Sola-Scriptura system. That they are found in "Nature" using "reason" and trace to the pagan Aristotle, not the Bible.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59147567939604187512009-02-08T18:59:00.000-07:002009-02-08T18:59:00.000-07:00Well, it might not have been a conscious project ...Well, it might not have been a conscious project by the key Founders but rather the effect (or is it affect, I sometimes have a hard time with those two) of the compelling thought of Locke, Newton, Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin et al. But I DO not see it as chiefly deriving from the Bible or orthodox traditions of Christianity, rather more from a modern enlightenment zeitgest, more moderate than Rousseau, but enlightenment nonetheless. And by the way the moderation might actually make such thought MORE dangerous to Christianity because at least with Rousseau and Paine the orthodox could tell when a spade was a spade.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9073991304279040842009-02-08T16:57:00.000-07:002009-02-08T16:57:00.000-07:00In principle. But I did a rundown above about the...In principle. But I did a rundown above about these Founders, and they don't shoehorn in too easily to any one "team." Madison is not Washington is not Franklin, and neither can the Founding be attributed only [or largely] to a half-dozen figures.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40216174837884905222009-02-08T11:58:00.000-07:002009-02-08T11:58:00.000-07:00The "Key" Founders thesis has serious problems, as...<I>The "Key" Founders thesis has serious problems, as the rest of the Founders were not mooks who signed ontoany document "key" Founders stuck in front of them.</I><BR/><BR/>We differ a bit here Tom. I don't think the folks were "mooks." However, I do believe that ideas have consequences and that often it's one or a few folks who posit novel and groundbreaking ideas that end up transforming societies and affect millions to billions.<BR/><BR/>I'm thinking of men like Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Locke, Rousseau and Marx and how profound world movments often boil down to the thought of just one key person.<BR/><BR/>So I think it's entirely plausible to think that the ideas of a handful of leading light key Founders set America in motion.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9546001581089128402009-02-08T08:23:00.000-07:002009-02-08T08:23:00.000-07:00Tim,Thanks. Yes, this was done almost 2 years ago...Tim,<BR/><BR/>Thanks. Yes, this was done almost 2 years ago in 2007. The problem with the Internet is these things tend to get lost in the scrolls. That's why I reproduced it.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76025276503233763772009-02-08T05:29:00.000-07:002009-02-08T05:29:00.000-07:00In his famous Farewell Address, Washington noted t...<I>In his famous Farewell Address, Washington noted the most important aspect about "religion" is the morality it produces (as opposed to the souls it saves).</I><BR/><BR/>But Jon, how much does this statement tell us about his personal faith? Not as much as you seem to propose I would say. He is making a statement about religion generally (and certainly he was thinking of Christianity, more on this later) and how it relates to government. To include this as a clear argument about his personal faith is not a fully accurate representation. <BR/><BR/>Also, he is not saying here that morality is the most important part of religion. Rather, he is saying that the most important thing that religion has to offer this young nation is it's morality, which as has been pointed out by others, is only one part of it's emphasis. <BR/><BR/>And on your intimation that by not specifying Christian when mentioning religion in his inauguration hints toward a personal belief of his that all religions can contribute equally in this way doesn't hold much weight. While you can pull numerous quotes from Washington referring to many ways of saying "God", and thus seeming to imply a personal plurality. I think these must be put in the context of the position Washington was in. <BR/><BR/>He quickly, in his leading role, realized that he must speak generally about religion because America needed all the help it could get, and thus he needed to be, well, politically correct in not offending others. <BR/><BR/>For example, he became quickly sensitive to Catholic believers' lives and role in the Revolutionary War when dealing with both Quebec as well as in realizing the helpful efforts of Catholics in fighting in the war. After that time, you almost never (and possibly never at all - I'm not fully certain) heard him talk negatively about Catholics. <BR/><BR/>Did he believe Catholicism was ok? No, I think it's clear he didn't. But to succeed in his role, he did what was needed.<BR/><BR/>In sum, I think it would be more helpful to separate out his personal beliefs from those he meant to be political. I realize he didn't say much about his personal faith, but we cannot use his more political leaning statements to support his own personal faith. I think it's clear his main goal was to found a country. Spending time personally discerning his own faith, let alone communicating it to others was not high on his list. Don't mean to downplay the faith of George Washington. He clearly had faith in a Christian God. But as you well know, considering context and intent is crucial in parsing out the meaning of these or any quotes. <BR/><BR/>On another note, congrats on having your unique idea's heard on some important venue's.Tim Polackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15292479938965452296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72042197326319517822009-02-08T01:30:00.000-07:002009-02-08T01:30:00.000-07:00I generally agree with your arguments against Mich...I generally agree with your arguments against Michael Novak, Mr. Rowe, Novak being someone who is putatively on my "side." I could provide additional source-material arguments to back your counterarguments.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>I strongly disagree with Mr. Novak's assertion that the Founders believed "the characteristics of Christianity and Judaism...make them distinctively fit for free republics." Nothing in my meticulous study of the key Founding Fathers shows they believed Judaism and Christianity were exclusively "fit" for free republics.</I><BR/><BR/>"Key" would be once again the operative word, on which your thesis hangs, and is hanged. <BR/>You return to your "key" Founders canard, as if there weren't a hundred other Founders who signed and ratified the Founding documents, and as if the United States of America would not have been founded without Jefferson and Adams, or Franklin. Washington spoke little at the Constitutional Convention, but was necessary as a unifying figurehead; about James Madison you can say nothing except guesses, as he left an admirably scant paper trail about his theology. And Benjamin Franklin wanted to pray while they were ginning up the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>As for John Adams, it's becoming clear through our joint studies that he was incoherent enough that one Adams quote can be set in opposition to another.<BR/><BR/>The "Key" Founders thesis has serious problems, as the rest of the Founders were not mooks who signed ontoany document "key" Founders stuck in front of them.<BR/><BR/>And to return to your argument re Judeo-Christianity, that "Nothing in my meticulous study of the key Founding Fathers shows they believed Judaism and Christianity were exclusively "fit" for free republics"---<BR/><BR/>All I can say is that I challenge---defy---you to show that the Founders, "key" or otherwise, had a goddam clue about the content of the other religions of the world. <BR/><BR/>The best you got is John Adams and a fragment of "ZALEUCUS," and on another occasion when Adams speaks well of a nice fragment from Hinduism about the big picture of Deity.<BR/><BR/>Do you think that when George Washington spoke of "The Great Spirit," he had a clue that The Great Spirit was seen by many Native Americans pantheistically [God-in-all-things]?<BR/><BR/>Jon, this conception of the Great Spirit was the monotheistic and providential God, a western thing. It wouldn't occur to anyone in the Founding era except the deists like Thomas Paine that it wasn't all the same God. And even Thomas Paine was a monotheist!<BR/><BR/>"Other religions," in the most essential sense, are non-starters in considering God and the Founding era.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22071605237999078792009-02-08T01:22:00.000-07:002009-02-08T01:22:00.000-07:00This is a free country.Why would anyone want anyth...This is a free country.<BR/><BR/>Why would anyone want anything less?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com