tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5936452143068399581..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Christian America: The Roots of an Imagined CommunityBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44210090732993805232009-03-19T14:48:00.000-06:002009-03-19T14:48:00.000-06:00Jimmyraybob:Thanks for your take. I'd be interest...Jimmyraybob:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your take. I'd be interested to hear how you think I might be able to better clarify the "imagined community" concept to someone who is unfamiliar with that term. Where is my explination lacking? Where was it strong? In other words, what in the into was helpful and what was b.s. =)<BR/><BR/>Thanks again to everyone for chiming in...even thanks to Mr. Van Dyke!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14635413932593702992009-03-19T13:15:00.000-06:002009-03-19T13:15:00.000-06:00Brad,I think that it would be a huge help to the g...Brad,<BR/><BR/>I think that it would be a huge help to the general reader (who you should probable assume has no background in the specifics) to clearly and concisely define what <I>you</I> understand the "imagined community" to be - a definition of what the target is. And then set up the problem that your thesis is going to address based on the definition/concept of the imagined community. <BR/><BR/>As one such outside reader (at least unfamiliar with Benedict Anderson and his work) I am finding it hard to get involved. When I start reading I'm not immediately sure what the problem is that you are tackling and I'm not sure what your absolute specific goal is. <BR/><BR/>Obviously, in your thesis the concepts of the "imagined community" and that of the "Christian Nation" are somehow connected and likely in tension but before leaving page one I'm already starting to Google, which means I'm likely to be the one doing the work at defining the terms which may be different than your intent.<BR/><BR/>The detailed development of the thesis should flow from the initial strong thesis statement at the very outset - should also help people focus if you're doing and oral defense or presentation.<BR/><BR/>Your thesis topic is very interesting to me and I look forward to following the discussion. Although I don't really think that the Christian Nation movement will ever succeed, the proponents and a rather large, somewhat sympathetic constituency make a rather powerful force in trying to shape a national identity.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing your work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51643064526612493972009-03-19T11:22:00.000-06:002009-03-19T11:22:00.000-06:00Hmmm. Maybe I'll think about that as my angle in ...Hmmm. Maybe I'll think about that as my angle in the book that I know is in me.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76053468642326550462009-03-19T10:56:00.000-06:002009-03-19T10:56:00.000-06:00Jon:Thanks for the comments. Yes, Noll does menti...Jon:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments. Yes, Noll does mention that the "Christian America" argument is pretty much as timeless as America itself. Marsden, Hatch, Ahlstrom and others also point this out. <BR/><BR/>For my purposes, however, I am not looking at how the "Christian America" belief extends throughout history, but how it became (in my opinion) an imagined community. I think your idea of comparing the "Christian America" movement from different time periods would be fascinating, but probably undoable for my paper...simply too long. However, that would make for a killer book/separat paper or something along that line. It's certainly worth exploring that idea!<BR/><BR/>You also write:<BR/><BR/><EM>Men like D. James Kennedy et al. set to "reconstruct" the "deconstructed" myth that we see in places like the Holy Trinity and BF Morris' book.</EM><BR/><BR/>I wonder if in some cases it would be better to call "Christian Nationalists," "Christian Reconstructionists?" Or if we really want to play with terms, "National Christian Reconstructionists." =)Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37306052034114615182009-03-19T09:56:00.000-06:002009-03-19T09:56:00.000-06:00Let me note that if I am not mistaken Mark Noll re...Let me note that if I am not mistaken Mark Noll recognizes that Christian Nationalist ideas are not new. Just that they rested on an historical myth. "Republicanism" is not the creation of the Bible or Christianity and arguably the "modern republican" ideals of the Founding arguably are in tension with biblical Christianity. Yet, many figures did present them as going hand in hand. I also remember Noll saying something like in order to make the case that Christianity is compatible with Founding era liberal democratic-republican ideals it had to "import" "foreign" ideas into the pulpit.<BR/><BR/>The central thesis of the Christian America argument that is easily deconstructed is "it's by virtue of our specific theology [Sola-Scriptura Protestantism] that America's Founding order was created." And by that they mean not "bottom up" -- there is a kernel of truth there, most communities were quite culturally Protestant Christian. But top down, i.e., the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Federalist Papers are "biblical-Christian" documents. And the men from the Constitutional Conventation and signers of the DOI were "Christians" as they understand the term (orthodox Trinitarian). That's the modern reconstructed myth. It might be interesting, for your paper, (though this might turn it into a book) to examine the older Christian Nation idea, as it existed from the Founding, throughout the 19th Century, up until modern scholars started debunking it. And then look at the attempt to "reconstruct" from in the 1970s onwards.<BR/><BR/>Finally one other thing to keep in mind [I have to get this Kraynak v. Tierney post done, because Kraynak's lecture will help] yes there was a lot of God-talk and talking Christianity up during the Founding and perhaps the Visitor's Center ignores that. But if you look at the architecture of Washington DC, you DON'T see Christian architecture but Greco-Roman architecture. You could work the Freemasons in there. Now architecture is not necessarily political-philosophy, but I think it makes a metaphor for how much of what is "foundational" to the American Founding is FOREIGN to biblical Christianity.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37832444746602618662009-03-19T09:30:00.000-06:002009-03-19T09:30:00.000-06:00Brad,I think you have a very interesting thesis. ...Brad,<BR/><BR/>I think you have a very interesting thesis. Trying to take something constructive from Tom's feedback, it's true "Christian Nation" like ideas are nothing new and the Holy Trinity case and BF Morris's book are good examples of how popular it was in the 19th Century. But ultimately the idea is untenable and hence easily deconstructed which is what scholars did. Men like D. James Kennedy et al. set to "reconstruct" the "deconstructed" myth that we see in places like the Holy Trinity and BF Morris' book (or the book entitled "George Washington the Christian" that the Leathley/Farley debate below invokes). And therein lies the basis for their "imagined" community. That's the way I see it.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61455272602594731122009-03-19T09:02:00.000-06:002009-03-19T09:02:00.000-06:00Here, here!!!Here, here!!!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62989761054221120592009-03-19T08:08:00.000-06:002009-03-19T08:08:00.000-06:00Tom: "I try not to take it personally but Lord kno...Tom: "I try not to take it personally but Lord knows it's hard sometimes."<BR/><BR/>? ? ... Tom, in all seriousness, you appear to go out of your way to make it personal ... and "Lord knows" your efforts make it hard to not take it personally.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3968813547501505842009-03-19T08:00:00.000-06:002009-03-19T08:00:00.000-06:00TVD writes:I understand I make people mad and frus...TVD writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>I understand I make people mad and frustrated. But their frustration isn't with me, but with the evidence, and I get in the way, kill the messenger and all that. I try not to take it personally but Lord knows it's hard sometimes. You understand.</EM><BR/><BR/>Don't flatter yourself, and make no mistake, people's frustration is NOT with evidence...it's MOST CERTAINLY with you.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52048646246672930862009-03-19T05:49:00.000-06:002009-03-19T05:49:00.000-06:00Regarding the modern Christian-Nation / Dominionis...Regarding the modern <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nation#Dominionism_as_a_broader_movement" REL="nofollow">Christian-Nation / Dominionism</A> movement.<BR/><BR/>The <I>Christian Nation</I> movement qualifies as <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nation#Soft_dominionism_.28Christian_nationalism.29" REL="nofollow">Soft Dominionism</A>, but is still part of the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nation#Dominionism_as_a_broader_movement" REL="nofollow">boader Dominionsism movement</A> which accompanied the relatively recent rise of the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Right" REL="nofollow">Christian Right</A>.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87818271751722767982009-03-19T05:32:00.000-06:002009-03-19T05:32:00.000-06:00Tom: >>The Christian nation thing is not &qu...Tom: >>The Christian nation thing is not "new."<<<BR/><BR/>hmmm, Tom the "Christian Nation" activism certainly is a modern movement.<BR/><BR/>"Oy, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. If you can't tell your good arguments from your bad ones, it's no wonder nobody else can, either."<BR/><BR/>;-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34460812009353226502009-03-18T23:19:00.000-06:002009-03-18T23:19:00.000-06:00You asked for feedback, you got it, Brad. Many of...You asked for feedback, you got it, Brad. Many of our contributors don't even ask. They just deposit their droppings and move on.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying I'm right, and certainly not saying you're wrong. All I said about our blog was that my point of view has changed since I joined it. What changed my view was looking up the sources of those various droppings, the words of the Founders themselves, and I found something quite different than I was taught to expect.<BR/><BR/>I understand I make people mad and frustrated. But their frustration isn't with me, but with the evidence, and I get in the way, kill the messenger and all that. I try not to take it personally but Lord knows it's hard sometimes. You understand.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4396572401776545722009-03-18T22:29:00.000-06:002009-03-18T22:29:00.000-06:00Again, you are right, I am wrong...as is the case ...Again, you are right, I am wrong...as is the case ALWAYS on this blog. <BR/><BR/>As for your impression of this blog, I could give two shits!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66364356550387301452009-03-18T21:00:00.000-06:002009-03-18T21:00:00.000-06:00I don't present MY facts, Brad. In fact, when I s...I don't present MY facts, Brad. In fact, when I started all this, on this blog, I had a different impression than I have now.<BR/><BR/>You asked for input. All I said was your assertions needed to be backed by evidence, by argument. <BR/>I'm arguing your thesis on its own terms, not mine. <BR/><BR/><I>I don't despise "Christian Nationalists" as you suggest</I><BR/><BR/>The quotes from your thesis [above] suggest otherwise, sorry. They're pretty scathing. I don't see how anyone could draw any other conclusion. C'mon, Brad.<BR/><BR/>I'm content to leave you with Jasper Adams. Not my facts, just facts. The Christian nation thing is not "new." Regardless of whether it's correct or wrong, this imagined community goes back a long long way, and isn't just a product of the 1960s and '70s. Let's just stick with your core premise.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87075259638220042412009-03-18T20:27:00.000-06:002009-03-18T20:27:00.000-06:00Heh, your arrogant presumption knows no bounds, To...Heh, your arrogant presumption knows no bounds, Tom. But hey, what are we to expect. First off, don't presume to know how I vote. All you've done in your "enlgightening" comments over the past few months is pick bones with others in an effort to demonstrate your "superior" understanding of...well...everything. <BR/><BR/>I don't despise "Christian Nationalists" as you suggest. In fact, I would like nothing more than to prove their assertions. It fits very well with my religion. The problem is that history says otherwise.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54692629415045437932009-03-18T19:40:00.000-06:002009-03-18T19:40:00.000-06:00What angle? I'm just pointing out that you're mak...What angle? I'm just pointing out that you're making historical assertions without supplying the requisite historical proof, Brad. I'm taking your thesis on its own terms.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me you're using a sociological term to make unflattering political-historical charges against a group you don't like, ostensibly because they don't vote the way you do.<BR/><BR/>But hell, you've already come right out and called them liars and radicals against the American tradition of the "separation of church and state." Why bother with the scholarly veneer?<BR/><BR/>By proclaiming them a "new" "imagined community," you cut them off from their core claims of historical and political continuity with American history.<BR/><BR/>We need not be sympathetic to attempt to "understand them as they undertood themselves," as one political philosopher put it:<BR/><BR/>Their Christian nation argument is not provably different [unless you show otherwise] from <A HREF="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/12/whither-christianity-in-usa.html" REL="nofollow">Jasper Adams' in 1833</A>. And surely they see their opposition to abortion as heir to <A HREF="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/search/label/William%20Wilberforce" REL="nofollow">the Christian religion's strong participation in the Abolitionist movement</A>. [You wrote that one yourself, Brad.]<BR/><BR/>Not MY facts, Brad, God forbid. In fact, surely if you read that charge from my point of view, there's an insinuation of intellectual dishonesty on my part, which I find hurtful.<BR/><BR/>As for this "new" group tending to vote as a bloc based on shared values [and aside from some admittedly underinformed chatter, voting and political contributions have been the limit of their political involvement], their vote is still less monolithic than the black churches, the Jewish vote, or dare we mention, the Mormons and Unitarian Universalists.<BR/><BR/>If we were to condemn them on the same grounds you condemn these "Christian nationists" [am I a Christian nationist?], I think it would somehow come off as bigotry, not acceptable scholarly argument. But that's not asserted as fact, just my opinion, of course.<BR/><BR/>Peace. I still have no doubt you'll get an A, unless you're at the University of Dallas or Liberty University or something.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35183636718049535522009-03-18T18:34:00.000-06:002009-03-18T18:34:00.000-06:00TVD writes:Again, facts not in evidence, only asse...TVD writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>Again, facts not in evidence, only assertion, indeed bald polemicism. Now, if your prof is as liberal as they say 95% of them are, he'll give you an A. But polemics aren't history or even sociology.</EM><BR/><BR/>So, YOUR facts...ok...I'll see what I can do. As for my Prof., my guess is he'll judge the HISTORICAL content, not the take...as opposed to your angle on history.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34597393018479899282009-03-18T18:32:00.000-06:002009-03-18T18:32:00.000-06:00TVD writes:"I see it all the time here, where weak...TVD writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>"I see it all the time here, where weak points are pounced on, "victory" is declared, but the best arguments are completely ignored and the polemicist goes his merry way, unconfused by the facts."</EM><BR/><BR/>AHHHHH, ok I have it figured out now. "Objective" history is that which agrees with TVD's belief system. Everything else is baseless. Got it!<BR/><BR/>BTW, your "liberal fascism" defense is still...well...lol!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16825560244767494612009-03-18T18:28:00.000-06:002009-03-18T18:28:00.000-06:00Re grading inflation, it depends on what dept. or ...Re grading inflation, it depends on what dept. or school you are in. In the math & sciences it's certainly not the case. And when in my ultra-PC law school, back then with a lackluster bar passage rate, but today with a stellar one (thanks to a multimillion dollar endowment from our law school's now trial lawyer namesake), we had a mandatory faculty curve of 2.85.<BR/><BR/>Our conservative students weren't stupid. They knew what to and what NOT to say on those exams. Plus we had anynomous grading (which the ABA, I do believe, requires in regular "exam" classes). That was sufficient to quell the bias. But I'm sure it exists in other places, to which, again, smart, non-PC students learn how to "play the game" that philosophers have been playing since the beginning.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52162306942169147562009-03-18T18:18:00.000-06:002009-03-18T18:18:00.000-06:00Tom: "[...] if your prof is as liberal as they say...Tom: "[...] if your prof is as liberal as they say 95% of them are, he'll give you an A."<BR/><BR/>To which the appropriate reply is: "[...] facts not in evidence, only assertion, indeed bald polemicism."<BR/><BR/>;-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77269065693328545842009-03-18T18:07:00.000-06:002009-03-18T18:07:00.000-06:00Of course I am unsympathetic to this "imagined com...<I>Of course I am unsympathetic to this "imagined community." That's what history is; taking a stand on something, not just doing a chronological account of the past.</I><BR/><BR/>??????<BR/><BR/>Couldn't disagree more. Having such an animus makes one's history dishonest and reduces it to polemics.<BR/><BR/>I see it all the time here, where weak points are pounced on, "victory" is declared, but the best arguments are completely ignored and the polemicist goes his merry way, unconfused by the facts.<BR/><BR/>Now, I have a POV about all this, but stuff like the Liberal Fascism line is just tongue-in-cheek, and a gentle objection to the recent American Fascism headline that appeared on this blog and I found far too polemical if not somewhat offensive.<BR/><BR/>[Jonah Goldberg's book, BTW, doesn't <I>compare</I> liberalism to fascism as a pejorative, it actually shows liberalism's actual historical embrace of actual fascism, namely Mussolini's. But I digress.]<BR/><BR/>But to return to the premise of your thesis, it still rests on the assertion that the Christian nation argument is a <I>dis</I>continuity from American history, a new phenomenon, and as you clearly assert, built on a lie ["rewriting history"].<BR/><BR/><I>Eliminating the annoying prerequisite separation of church and state essentially removed the “shackles” of religious restraint on American politics.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, facts not in evidence, only assertion, indeed bald polemicism. Now, if your prof is as liberal as they say 95% of them are, he'll give you an A. But polemics aren't history or even sociology.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40335129124954035722009-03-18T17:43:00.000-06:002009-03-18T17:43:00.000-06:00Tom:Your point about going back to the 20s (Willia...Tom:<BR/><BR/>Your point about going back to the 20s (William Jennings Bryan, etc.) was something I considered, but it would make this paper too long. Besides, I still believe the the origins/birth of the Christian Nation movement as an IMAGINED COMMUNITY began in the late 60s, early 70s.<BR/><BR/>But yes, this argument goes WAY back...the imagined community aspect, however, does not...in my opinion at least.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85233877836407794942009-03-18T17:39:00.000-06:002009-03-18T17:39:00.000-06:00TVD writes:You asked for feedback and here it is. ...TVD writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>You asked for feedback and here it is. You obviously are unsympathetic to this "imagined community," and in the least I thought it fair to point out that it's unfair to lump civil rights in with abortion.</EM><BR/><BR/>What do you want? Chronology? Of course I am unsympathetic to this "imagined community." That's what history is; taking a stand on something, not just doing a chronological account of the past. And no, it isn't fair to lump Civil Rights, abortion and the other things that made conservative Christians mad in the same boat. Again, I will refer you to Ahlstrom's book...where I got the information in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Liberal facsism...lol...and you accuse me of being unsympathetic to one side!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48684062332300124332009-03-18T17:36:00.000-06:002009-03-18T17:36:00.000-06:00OFT:I asked for constructive criticism. Everythin...OFT:<BR/><BR/>I asked for constructive criticism. Everything you have to say is irrelevant. I've done my best to ignore you so please extend to me the same courtesy.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72262356557785307762009-03-18T17:32:00.000-06:002009-03-18T17:32:00.000-06:00Well, Brad, my question would remain whether "secu...Well, Brad, my question would remain whether "secular progressivism" isn't just the other side of the same imagined community coin.<BR/><BR/>As for your #3, your excoriation of the "thoroughly indoctrinated" "rewriting history" means you simply <I>do</I> care about such things. You asked for feedback and here it is. You obviously are unsympathetic to this "imagined community," and in the least I thought it fair to point out that it's unfair to lump civil rights in with abortion.<BR/><BR/>Now if you wanted to trace this phenomenon you so clearly dislike to 1973 and <I>Roe v. Wade</I>, where moral issues were decided by an unelected judiciary instead of democratically, where government asserted primacy over its underlying society and putative constituency, perhaps the focus would be more clear.<BR/><BR/>But if your aspiration is a grander sweep of history, the alignment of religion and politics can also be seen in William Jennings Bryan or Catholic Workerish FDRism, which still has a resonance today in "social Gospel" Obamaism. But a more consistent thread that weaves through the entire 20th century [if not predating it] is the aforementioned secular progressivism, or secular humanism, or as it's better and more accurately known today, "Liberal Fascism."<BR/><BR/>;-DTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com