tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6558841016039906096..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Fischer on America's non-Christian FoundingBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23124651176522645732010-04-04T12:11:24.378-06:002010-04-04T12:11:24.378-06:00Well, there were zero Jerry Falwells among them, t...Well, there were zero Jerry Falwells among them, that's for sure, even John Witherspoon, the clergyman.<br /><br />But when Madison refers to "the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself," this appeals to the prevailing sentiment in America, regardless of Madison's private theology.<br /><br />So when Fischer writes:<br /><br /><br /><i>Over the wider American landscape, however, colonists were notably “unchurched” and “un-Christian.”</i><br /><br />"un-Christian" requires a lot more proof and argument than I've ever seen offered, or am likely to. The "un-churched" data is disputed by some scholars like James H. Hutson; be that as it may, there were Horse Protestants [served by itinerant preachers] and House Protestants [who discussed the Bible among themselves without clergy], and so absent more arguments, "un-Christian" is whopper.<br /><br />The unsettling thing is that most folks can read Fischer here without raising an eyebrow.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57611968423461096202010-04-04T08:23:32.236-06:002010-04-04T08:23:32.236-06:00Tom, I'm not exactly sure why you took my comm...Tom, I'm not exactly sure why you took my comment as a comprehensive list. It's not, obviously. They were examples.Aaron Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12224055781100615563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21951912083188962312010-04-03T18:54:08.771-06:002010-04-03T18:54:08.771-06:00Yes, but the real problem is that Fischer, et al.,...Yes, but the real problem is that Fischer, et al., are taken seriously, and by more people.<br /><br />And yes, Ben, there certainly is a "secular" narrative, and it's taught in our schools. Except Texas.<br /><br />;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65762928329085801492010-04-03T18:44:46.827-06:002010-04-03T18:44:46.827-06:00There's a guy named Jerry Newcome, his and Pet...There's a guy named Jerry Newcome, his and Peter Lillback's co-author, who is attempting to carry on the torch.<br /><br />Plus, there's good ole David Barton. I saw him advertised as a featured speaker at a "retreat" that Charles Stanley has prepared.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20680244893474365502010-04-03T18:39:17.229-06:002010-04-03T18:39:17.229-06:00Well, I'd venture to say Mr. Reese's view ...Well, I'd venture to say Mr. Reese's view is the one that our public school systems produce, since I find it virtually everywhere. Kennedy's reach is surely smaller than our educational systems!<br /><br />[Plus he's been dead since 2007.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65925469283144614622010-04-03T18:32:14.508-06:002010-04-03T18:32:14.508-06:00This narrative is far more prevalent that whatever...<i>This narrative is far more prevalent that whatever the D. James Kennedys of the world say.</i><br /><br />I think it depends on what the meaning of the word "prevalent" is. That narrative may prevail more in the "respected" academy. But many televised megachurches, such as DJK's, have big numbers.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14370662587159855702010-04-03T18:12:12.545-06:002010-04-03T18:12:12.545-06:00It seems that most of the FF (especially Washingto...<i>It seems that most of the FF (especially Washington, Franklin, and Adams) disbelieved the miracles of the bible and shunned supernatural aspects of Christianity.</i><br /><br />This is so partially true as to be substantially false, Mr. Reese. How quickly Jefferson and Franklin---the acknowledged outliers---become "most of" the Founders.<br /><br />This narrative is far more prevalent that whatever the D. James Kennedys of the world say.<br /><br /><i>Adams, thought devoutly Christian, believed it was a corrupted text.</i><br /><br />Yes, he did---although he called Christianity a "revelation" and allowed for miracles.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-721777265561309772010-04-03T18:02:08.675-06:002010-04-03T18:02:08.675-06:00Re: "When the "secular" case is mad...Re: "<i>When the "secular" case is made---when they even bother to try---it rests on Jefferson's private correspondence, the Danbury letter, the Treaty of Tripoli, and very little else.</i>"<br /><br />I think this implies a false dichotomy. Secularism doesn't purge religion. Rather it takes the position that the law should be free from religious doctrine.<br /><br />The use of secular language enables those of different (incompatible?) religions views to participate in seeking a common goal, without their doctrinal differences interfering with the process.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77367822355814801482010-04-03T17:49:15.733-06:002010-04-03T17:49:15.733-06:00Tom Van Dyke
As I understand it, most of the foun...Tom Van Dyke<br /><br />As I understand it, most of the founders believed something in between the Bible being "divine revelation" and "some book." It seems that most of the FF (especially Washington, Franklin, and Adams) disbelieved the miracles of the bible and shunned supernatural aspects of Christianity. Adams, thought devoutly Christian, believed it was a corrupted text.Aaron Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12224055781100615563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3134210675255996022010-04-03T15:29:04.304-06:002010-04-03T15:29:04.304-06:00My problem with Fischer, et al., is they take eith...My problem with Fischer, et al., is they take either the arguments of a fringe [the D. James Kennedys, etc.]---if not creating a total strawman like "'some' evangelicals claim blahblah"---and "rebut" them.<br /><br />But this tells us only what the Founding was <i>not</i>. When the "secular" case is made---when they even bother to try---it rests on Jefferson's private correspondence, the Danbury letter, the Treaty of Tripoli, and very little else. [Oh yeah, and the "Godless" Constitution, completely ignoring the prevalence of religion at the state level.]<br /><br />As for Gregg Frazer's "10 Point Test," once the term "Judeo-Christian" is used, the Trinity becomes irrelevant. Neither is there any indication that besides Jefferson [and Paine], any Founder disputed that the Bible was divine revelation and not just some book.<br /><br />But yes, I do agree the Puritans are very overemphasized, just as "deism" is. "Warm" deism [a monotheistic and providential God] coupled with a belief in divine revelation is far closer to a "Judeo-Christianity" than actual "deism."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37330610734376005462010-04-03T11:35:01.864-06:002010-04-03T11:35:01.864-06:00.
As per usual, J.R. makes some good points.
.
But....<br />As per usual, J.R. makes some good points.<br />.<br />But, I think you are judging Colonial America and the Founding Era with present day perspectives on what America must have been.<br />.<br />Yet, I'd venture there is a relatively similar way of looking at things. Maybe it's true that most of the people were unchristian in the sense that today's Evangelicals make their claims. But it seems that "rabble" didn't have the vote in the republic. The ones that voted were, my guess is, for the most part christianized and probably mostly influenced by some level of Calvinist thinking.<br />.<br />Same as today.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.com