Revisiting Salem: Part II

The Geography of Witchcraft
by Brad Hart

For the second installment -- and 200th posting for American Creation, BTW -- in my series on the Salem Witch Trials, I have decided to look at the geography of seventeenth-century Salem, which has become the centerpiece in William and Mary Quarterly’s July, 2008 review of the Salem historical record. To be more specific, it is Professor Benjamin C. Ray’s article entitled, The Geography of Witchcraft Accusations in 1692 Salem Village that has caught my attention.

In this particular article, Prof. Ray challenges some of the status quo interpretations of the Salem geographical record, and in particular questions the validity of the analysis offered by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum in their groundbreaking book, Salem Possessed. [1] As Prof. Ray points out, the most significant source for Boyer and Nissenbaum’s work was the 1867 book by Charles W. Upham, Salem Witchcraft, which included a detailed map of virtually all the households in Salem Village. [2] With this map, Boyer and Nissenbaum endeavored to demonstrate how specific geographic locations within Salem Village -- based primarily on economic and social differences -- led to the factionalism that ultimately divided Salem on the witchcraft issue. For roughly thirty years, Boyer and Nissenbaum’s work has served as the standard interpretation of the Salem Story.

In recent years, however, a number of scholars have come forward to challenge the interpretation offered in Salem Possessed. In 2002, renowned historian Mary Beth Norton published her book, In The Devil’s Snare, which served to challenge some of the assertions made by Boyer and Nissenbaum. As Norton states in the introduction of her book:

The influential "Salem Possessed" (1974), by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, attributes the crisis to long-standing political, economic, and religious discord among men of Salem Village, denying the significance of women’s prominence as both accused and accuser…In the Devil’s Snare contends that the dramatic events of 1692 can be fully understood only by viewing them as intricately related to concurrent political and military affairs in northern New England. [3]

In addition to Norton’s assertions, Prof. Ray points out that the traditional interpretation of the Upham map by Boyer and Nissenbaum is incomplete:

Contrary to Boyer and Nissenbaum’s conclusions in "Salem Possessed," geographic analysis of the accusations in the village shows there was no significant villagewide east-west division between accusers and accused in 1692. Nor was there an east-west divide between households of different economic status…

…Though is may appear that the "Salem Possessed" map carries the burden of the argument about the socioeconomic and geographic foundation of the witchcraft accusations, the map does not supply all the evidence…a total of thirteen accusers were omitted, this indicating that the map is incomplete and does not represent all the accusers. [4]

Prof. Ray continues his argument by pointing out the inherently complex nature of geographical data. In his analysis, Ray claims that the map data included in Salem Possessed was conveniently construed to fit Boyer and Nissenbaum’s claims:

Boyer and Nissenbaum placed an all-important east-west demarcation line at the center of their map without explaining its precise location. The lack of explanation is curious because positioning the line slightly to the west would have made a significant difference in the crowded center of the map, shifting several As (a marker used to identify the accused) to the eastern side of the village. [5]

The rest of Prof. Ray’s article goes on to point out various omissions made by Boyer and Nissenbaum in their interpretation of the Upham map. In addition, the article argues that a geographical interpretation that seeks to divide Salem Village socially or economically is inherently too restrictive, and that future inquiry “needs to be set as free of interpretive assumptions as possible if scholars are to have a solid geographic foundation for further historical research.” [6]

Though truly a pioneering work that defined the historiography of the Salem Witch Trials for decades, Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum’s Salem Possessed should at least be seen as an incomplete take on the Salem saga.


Notes:
[1] Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, Mass., 1974).

[2] Charles Upham, Salem Witchcraft: With an Account of Salem Village and a History of Opinions on Witchcraft and Kindred Subjects, 2 vols. (Boston, Mass., 1867).

[3] Mary Beth Norton, In the Devil’s Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692 (New York, 2002), 4-5.

[4] Benjamin C. Ray, “The Geography of Witchcraft Accusations in 1692 Salem Village,” in The William and Mary Quarterly, vol, LXV, no. 3, (July, 2008), 453.

[5] Ibid, 456.

[6] Ibid, 478.

The First Amendment as Shield

In recent weeks, there has been an uproar over blogger P.Z. Myers' desecration of a consecrated eucharistic wafer. A little background: A college student in Florida received death threats from angry Catholics after he smuggled a consecrated wafer out of a Catholic church. P.Z. Myers, an outspoken atheist, was outraged by the vitriol cast at the student and pledged to desecrate a post-transubstantiation host in order to affirm his belief that "nothing must be held sacred." Bill Donohue and the Catholic League got in on the action and Myers has received several death threats of his own, along with thousands of angry emails from offended Catholics.

In response to this incident, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy issued a press release that caught my eye because of its pronouncements on the meaning of religious freedom and the intentions of the founding fathers. The statement reads, in part,

We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.
The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation's constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few. Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper . . . The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.

I haven't been able to find much information on this organization. According to their website, the CCC is an "Association of 600 Roman Catholic Priests and Deacons pledged to the pursuit of personal holiness, loyalty to the Roman Pontiff, commitment to theological study and strict adherence to the authentic teachings of the Magisterium." Since they lack either the resources or the web-savvy to hire a web designer, I have to assume that it's not a very powerful organization. Still, I think that their understanding of religious freedom is worthy of comment.

First, I think that it’s important to dispel the idea that the actions of any private citizen can be unconstitutional (unless that citizen is acting as an agent of the government). Private citizens can violate laws, but the Constitution only applies to governmental actions. As Professor Laurence Tribe once pointed out, there are only two ways a private citizen can violate the Constitution: by enslaving someone or by transporting alcohol across state lines in violation of section 2 of the 21st Amendment. Even though Myers works at a public university, the desecration took place at his private residence and he discussed it on his personal blog (not hosted by the university), so it’s difficult to argue that he has the standing to act unconstitutionally.

I’m not writing to defend Myers’ actions, but to examine the CCC’s take on freedom of religion. Their position includes three main elements, one of which is probably true, while the others are, I think, way off the mark.

The first (true) part of their argument is that the Founding Fathers did not envision a society that functioned without religion. As various contributors to this blog have shown, the leading political figures of the late 18th century believed that religion was the backbone of private and public morality (though by “religion,” they did not necessarily mean orthodox Christianity). I disagree with the Founders on this issue, but I don’t deny that they thought that way.

The second part (“Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech”) is worth fleshing out. I don’t think there’s anything in our founding documents that prevents me from going out and buying a Bible and starting a bonfire with it. It may be crass, but it isn’t illegal (as long as I don't start a forest fire). There may be something here about hate crimes, but since hate crimes are all about intention, I don’t think Myers' acts would meet hate crime criteria since they were meant to demonstrate the folly of sacred objects, rather than to convey hatred of a particular group. Not 100% sure on this — anyone with legal expertise please feel free to prove me wrong. And just for the record, I don’t support burning books for any reason.

Of course, you can’t burn a church or destroy a sacred object that belongs to someone else (arson and theft are crimes, after all), and they may be arguing here that the consecrated host was stolen. Can you be said to steal something if it is freely given to you? Is the implied contract between a communicant and a celebrant legally enforceable? If anyone knows case law on this, I’d be interested in seeing it — the only relevant examples I can find involve stealing large numbers of free things (like campus newspapers) in order to keep them from being distributed. The distinction here is that there is a difference between criticizing a religion’s beliefs and attempting to intimidate its membership by vandalizing their buildings/libraries/relics, etc. I think Myers’ actions (destroying an object with negligible monetary value in the privacy of his own home and then writing about his reasons for doing so) are closer to the former than the latter, but the CCC obviously disagrees.

The last pillar of the CCC’s argument is the strangest. It deserves to be quoted again:

The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.

By placing this statement immediately after their speculations on the Founding Fathers’ intentions, the CCC implies that the Founding Fathers understood the 1st Amendment to be a Constitutional shield protecting religious orthodoxies from the uncouth rabble who might “malign” them.

I have a mental image of John Adams doing a spit-take.

Adams certainly did his share of maligning. Speaking of his own forebears, Adams spoke approvingly of how they “derid[ed], as all reasonable and impartial men must do, the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from Episcopal fingers.” He also believed that the Mass and its trappings were intended to “bewitch the simple and ignorant.”

Come on, John, tell us how you really feel:

In the Countries of slavery, and Romish superstition, the Laity must not learn to read, least they should detect the gross Impostures of the Priesthood, and shake off the Yoke of Bondage. But in Protestant Countries and especially in England and its Colonies, Freedom of Enquiry is allowed to be not only [illegible] the Priviledge but the Duty of every Individual. We know it to be our Duty, to read, examine and judge for ourselves, even of ourselves what is right. No Priest nor Pope has any Right to say what I shall believe, and I will not believe one Word they say, if I think it is not founded in Reason and in Revelation. Now how can I judge what My Bible justifies unless I can read my Bible.

I don’t know whether the CCC would be “grossly offend[ed]” by those remarks, but Adams certainly meant them to be offensive.

Adams was not alone in saying mean things about the Catholic church. In 1774, the Continental Congress called Catholicism, “a Religion that has deluged [Britain] in blood and dispersed Impiety, Bigotry, Persecution, Murder and Rebellion through every part of the World.” John Jay supported an article of the New York Constitution that prevented people from becoming citizens unless they would “abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil.”

Our founding documents may enshrine a right to worship without fearing government persecution, but our Founding Fathers did not surrender their right to criticize "faith traditions." I doubt that Americans who grew up reading about the Marian martyrs would endorse any legal barriers preventing people from criticizing the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I am envisioning a comments thread that runs off the rails picking apart Prof. Myers’ actions rather than the CCC’s position on the freedom of religion. I’ll save you lots of time by linking to several threads that have beaten that subject to death.

Instead, what do you think: Did the Founding Fathers believe that the first amendment should function as a cocoon to insulate “faith traditions” from non-members who wish to “attack, malign or grossly offend” them?

Christianity Today Library on American President's Religion

They relied on the excellent historical work of Gary Scott Smith chair of the history dept. at Grove City College and one of the most prominent evangelical historians. Notice their classification of the first half dozen:

PRESIDENT TERM DATES DENOMINATIONAL AFFILIATION
George Washington 1789-97 Episcopalian (theistic rationalist*)
John Adams 1797-1801 Congregationalist; Unitarian
Thomas Jefferson 1801-09 Episcopalian (theistic rationalist*)
James Madison 1809-17 Episcopalian (theistic rationalist*)
James Monroe 1817-25 Episcopalian (deist?)
John Quincy Adams 1825-29 Unitarian
Andrew Jackson 1829-37 Presbyterian

Here is what they put next to the "*":

*The term "deist" is often used for a number of early presidents and founding fathers, though this causes confusion. For some of these founders, historian Gary Scott Smith prefers the term "theistic rationalism," which mixed elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, and relied foremost on reason. Unlike deists, theistic rationalists believed that God was active in the world and that prayer was therefore effectual. They contended that religion's primary role was to promote morality, which was indispensable to society.

What's striking is according to Christian Nationalist standards, the first "Christian" President was probably Andrew Jackson. Traditional Christians define Christianity fairly narrowly according to orthodox Trinitarian doctrines. Because the "theistic rationalists" weren't orthodox Trinitarians -- yet because they also weren't "Deists" -- a new term was needed. Theistic rationalism is similar to John Adams' "Unitarianism" in all but name only. It's basically Christianity stripped of all of its orthodox doctrines such that theism and mere morality remain.

Glad to see there are honest evangelicals who get it. Indeed, they were among the first to get it.

On the Saddleback Civil Forum

Flunking the Warren Test
by Tom Van Dyke

Rick Warren is the multimillion-selling author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and pastor of the supersized, non-denominational/unaffiliated Saddleback Church of Lake Forest CA. He hosted the presidential candidates today for an informal chat in front of a few thousand [a few million, counting TV] people.

You don't dis Rev. Rick. He invites, you come.

One of his first questions to the candidates was along the lines of, What does your Christian Faith mean to you?

With 80% of Americans telling pollsters they consider themselves "Christians," it's fair to say that an unsatisfactory answer at Rev. Warren's dog-and-pony show might lose enough votes to lose the presidency.

And although the constitution explicitly forbids "religious tests" for federal office, I have no problem with candidates revealing their beliefs in trolling for votes: on the whole, I'm not going for the Satanist.

Anywayz, Barack Obama's answer was that his Christian belief meant Jesus died for his sins, John McCain's that he was forgiven and saved. Very nice.

But as Thomas Jefferson noted in his diary, never once did George Washington utter or write such a bold profession of orthodox Christian faith, even when the clergy tried to pin him down:

"[T]he old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."

Well, in 2008, the cable news pundits certainly would have noticed his unsatisfactory evasiveness, and pounced on it. If he'd been on Rev. Warren's stage tonight, a decisive sliver of voters might've adjudged George Washington as unfit to be President of the United States. Even a Christian Nationist should be able to appreciate that irony.

Channing at Sparks' Ordination

William Ellery Channing delivered a sermon at the ordination of Jared Sparks on "Unitarian Christianity." Sparks served as President of Harvard from 1849 to 1853 and was a distinguished biographer of among others, George Washington. Harvard officially became Unitarian in 1805. "From 1810 until 1933 all of the presidents of Harvard University were Unitarians."

My understanding of the history: In the 18th Century theological unitarianism was not considered real Christianity but "heresy" or "infidelity." Yet, such heresy was quite popular in educated 18th Century circles (and among America's key founders). This heresy was even being preached from the pulpit of New England's "Puritan" Congregational Churches. Eventually, in the 19th Century many of these New England Churches officially became Unitarian, and with Harvard officially adopting Unitarianism, and with the "rights of conscience" more firmly established in American law and culture, individuals felt freer to speak their mind and publicly assert what was once infidelity as a valid form of "Protestant Christianity."

Indeed, Philip Hamburger, in Separation of Church and State, notes one way in which Unitarians and Calvinists deflected their theological dispute was to come together, albeit for different reasons, to combat Roman Catholicism. It was liberal (Unitarian) and conservative (Calvinist) Protestants united against Roman Catholicism, which Hamburger argues eventually became Protestants United for Separation of Church and State (with underlying anti-Roman Catholic motives), which eventually became Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The question, though, is what was being called liberal Protestant Christianity (Unitarianism), though it might have been "Protestant," was it truly Christian? Ironically, whatever the theological disputes between traditionally minded Catholics and Protestants, arguably their theologies were closer to one another's, than either were to "Unitarian Christianity," which rejected core doctrines of traditional Christianity.

For instance, at Sparks' ordination Channing states the following on the Trinity:

We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, whilst acknowledging in words, it subverts in effect, the unity of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousness, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of properties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the belief of different intelligent beings, and, if this mark fails us, our whole knowledge fall; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to those which separate the persons of the Trinity; and when common Christians hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them as different beings, different minds?

We do, then, with all earnestness, though without reproaching our brethren, protest against the irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity. "To us," as to the Apostle and the primitive Christians, "there is one God, even the Father." With Jesus, we worship the Father, as the only living and true God. We are astonished, that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid the conviction, that the Father alone is God. We hear our Saviour continually appropriating this character to the Father. We find the Father continually distinguished from Jesus by this title. "God sent his Son." "God anointed Jesus." Now, how singular and inexplicable is this phraseology, which fills the New Testament, if this title belong equally to Jesus, and if a principal object of this book is to reveal him as God, as partaking equally with the Father in supreme divinity! We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the word God means three persons, where it is not limited to one person, and where, unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, it does not mean the Father. Can stronger proof be given, that the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity?

[...]

So entirely do the Scriptures abstain from stating the Trinity, that when our opponents would insert it into their creeds and doxologies, they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent forms of words altogether unsanctioned by Scriptural phraseology. That a doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and unprotected, to be made out by inference, and to be hunted through distant and detached parts of Scripture, this is a difficulty, which, we think, no ingenuity can explain.

[...]

We also think, that the doctrine of the Trinity injures devotion, not only by joining to the Father other objects of worship, but by taking from the Father the supreme affection, which is his due, and transferring it to the Son.

After denying the Trinity and Incarnation, Channing then denies Christ's Atonement:

We farther agree in rejecting, as unscriptural and absurd, the explanation given by the popular system, of the manner in which Christ's death procures forgiveness for men. This system used to teach as its fundamental principle, that man, having sinned against an infinite Being, has contracted infinite guilt, and is consequently exposed to an infinite penalty. We believe, however, that this reasoning, if reasoning it may be called, which overlooks the obvious maxim, that the guilt of a being must be proportioned to his nature and powers, has fallen into disuse. Still the system teaches, that sin, of whatever degree, exposes to endless punishment, and that the whole human race, being infallibly involved by their nature in sin, owe this awful penalty to the justice of their Creator. It teaches, that this penalty cannot be remitted, in consistency with the honor of the divine law, unless a substitute be found to endure it or to suffer an equivalent. It also teaches, that, from the nature of the case, no substitute is adequate to this work, save the infinite God himself; and accordingly, God, in his second person, took on him human nature, that he might pay to his own justice the debt of punishment incurred by men, and might thus reconcile forgiveness with the claims and threatenings of his law. Such is the prevalent system. Now, to us, this doctrine seems to carry on its front strong marks of absurdity; and we maintain that Christianity ought not to be encumbered with it, unless it be laid down in the New Testament fully and expressly. We ask our adversaries, then, to point to some plain passages where it is taught. We ask for one text, in which we are told, that God took human nature that he might make an infinite satisfaction to his own justice; for one text, which tells us, that human guilt requires an infinite substitute; that Christ's sufferings owe their efficacy to their being borne by an infinite being; or that his divine nature gives infinite value to the sufferings of the human. Not ONE WORD of this description can we find in the Scriptures; not a text, which even hints at these strange doctrines. They are altogether, we believe, the fictions of theologians. Christianity is in no degree responsible for them. We are astonished at their prevalence. What can be plainer, than that God cannot, in any sense, be a sufferer, or bear a penalty in the room of his creatures? How dishonorable to him is the supposition, that his justice is now so severe, as to exact infinite punishment for the sins of frail and feeble men, and now so easy and yielding, as to accept the limited pains of Christ's human soul, as a full equivalent for the endless woes due from the world? How plain is it also, according to this doctrine, that God, instead of being plenteous in forgiveness, never forgives; for it seems absurd to speak of men as forgiven, when their whole punishment, or an equivalent to it, is borne by a substitute? A scheme more fitted to obscure the brightness of Christianity and the mercy of God, or less suited to give comfort to a guilty and troubled mind, could not, we think, be easily framed.

We believe, too, that this system is unfavorable to the character. It naturally leads men to think, that Christ came to change God's mind rather than their own; that the highest object of his mission was to avert punishment, rather than to communicate holiness; and that a large part of religion consists in disparaging good works and human virtue, for the purpose of magnifying the value of Christ's vicarious sufferings. In this way, a sense of the infinite importance and indispensable necessity of personal improvement is weakened, and high-sounding praises of Christ's cross seem often to be substituted for obedience to his precepts. For ourselves, we have not so learned Jesus. Whilst we gratefully acknowledge, that he came to rescue us from punishment, we believe, that he was sent on a still nobler errand, namely, to deliver us from sin itself, and to form us to a sublime and heavenly virtue. We regard him as a Saviour, chiefly as he is the light, physician, and guide of the dark, diseased, and wandering mind. No influence in the universe seems to us so glorious, as that over the character; and no redemption so worthy of thankfulness, as the restoration of the soul to purity. Without this, pardon, were it possible, would be of little value. Why pluck the sinner from hell, if a hell be left to burn in his own breast? Why raise him to heaven, if he remain a stranger to its sanctity and love? With these impressions, we are accustomed to value the Gospel chiefly as it abounds in effectual aids, motives, excitements to a generous and divine virtue. In this virtue, as in a common centre, we see all its doctrines, precepts, promises meet; and we believe, that faith in this religion is of no worth, and contributes nothing to salvation, any farther than as it uses these doctrines, precepts, promises, and the whole life, character, sufferings, and triumphs of Jesus, as the means of purifying the mind, of changing it into the likeness of his celestial excellence.

Unitarianism seems as far removed from traditional orthodox Christianity as is Mormonism. To tie this back to America's founders and religion, in a big tent sense that includes trinitarians, unitarians, universalists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, cafeteria Christians, rationalistic Christians influenced by deism, the religion of the key founders like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, could be considered "Christian." But in a narrow sense that strictly defines Christianity according to its trinitarian orthodoxy, the beliefs of the key founders as well as Channing, Sparks and the 19th Century "liberal Protestants," were not "Christian."

Sparks is also notable because he, as Washington's biographer, and relying on the testimony of Washington's step-granddaughter/adopted daughter Nelly Custis argued on behalf of GW's "Christianity." Well, what did Sparks consider qualified as "Christianity," and what was he arguing GW was not? It's entirely possible that Sparks meant Washington was neither an atheist nor a strict deist, but a "Christian" in some broader sense, indeed the way he Sparks was. Arguably these broader forms of "Christianity" are not real Christianity, just as the broader forms of "Deism" that accept an active personal God and an intervening Providence are not real Deism.

Imitation: The Hightest Form of Flattery

It looks as though our blog has inspired a copycat...literally. Mr. Dan Atkinson, a Ph.D. candidate at Arizona State and self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist, has essentially declared war on American Creation by forming his own group blog entitled, American Creation 2.0. The blog's stated purpose is, "to counter the ridiculous secular nonsense regarding the religious history of America's founding." This virtual carbon copy of American Creation (at least in terms of the blog's appearance and not its content) has essentially fulfilled one of the primary goals we have always had at American Creation: to give a voice to every persuasion and perspective on this important historical topic.

Was America Founded On A Christian Heresy?

Arguably yes. A reader of mine once posed that very intriguing question. This relates to my query "what is Christianity?" and my post on political theology that Cato Unbound reproduced. A little while ago I invited chess master Kristo Miettinen to react to my position and he did so here. I'm not going to reproduce his entire note, just what I see as his telling understanding of "Christianity."

Miettinen, from what I can tell is a political conservative and a Christian but a theological moderate, bordering on theological liberalism. This should come as no surprise. There are plenty of politically conservative Christians whose theology is moderate to liberal. Bill O'Reilly for instance. His "Christianity" is clearly cafeteria in its method. He's on record (I saw the show) doubting the divine inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures that condemn homosexuality and stating disbelief in the actual story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Lot's wife turns into a pillar of salt. The late Tony Snow, likewise, when the Space Shuttle Columbia blew up, I remember, confidently asserted they were all in Heaven, even though non-Christians (one was a Hindu) were present among the crew.

Miettinen sees the Founders like Jefferson, Washington, and J. Adams as "Christian." Yet, in reacting to my thoughts on George Bush asserting Muslims worship the same God as Christians, Miettinen doesn't give the usual "conservative Christian" answer (of course they don't). He noted even Martin Luther termed Islam a "Christian heresy." Well okay. If Islam qualifies as "Christian" -- a Christian heresy -- then of course what the key Founders believed also qualifies as "Christian."

Here is the telling part of his note:

I agree with you that America has a political theology. I just think that you are working too hard to avoid admitting that whatever it is today, in the founders’ time it was Christianity, albeit of a uniquely American bibliocentric denominationally fragmented and generally unorthodox form; it was at best tolerant of orthodoxy, hesitantly at first, more confidently later.

Odds and ends at the end: to the extent that anyone was outraged when my man GWB acknowledged that Muslims worship the same God as we do, they weren’t confused about “America’s civic religion”, they were confused about Islam and its relation to Christianity (Luther went so far as to consider Mohammed a Christian heretic). GWB was right even in the strictly Christian sense; his critics were wrong in any sense. Whether the consensus of founders would have extended the same acknowledgment to Hindus is another matter; whether they knew enough about Hinduism to really have an informed opinion on the matter is also questionable.

My Right Angle

I think I've finally found it. Maybe. I don't know. There are absolutely TONS of books out there that address the "Christian Nation"/Religion of the Founders topic. I'm not even going name them. You know of many of them. I'll simply note the best, latest one to come out is Stephen Waldman's. My Dad is always asking me when my book is going to come out. I've always answered that the notion that America is not a Christian Nation/what religion did America's Founders believe in? has been done so many times by so many more prominent folks that it would make no sense for me to write such a book until I've found my novel angle.

Maybe I've found it: A legal perspective on why America is not a "Christian Nation." The hoary Holy Trinity case of 1892 once infamously declared in its dicta that America is a Christian nation. My book would be an originalist, legal perspective on why Holy Trinity's dicta was wrong. The holding of the case is quite narrow and even Justice Scalia, in his book A Matter of Interpretation notes that case as wrongly decided and textbook piss poor legal reasoning. Scalia really didn't address the notion that America is a Christian Nation; he just sneered at it, in an aside. That intimated to me that, even he, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court wouldn't support the Christian Nation thesis.

The book would be the kind of text that a court, for instance the Supreme Court, could cite as authority, if it ever did have to address the idea of whether the United States is or was founded to be a "Christian Nation."

I know that this is theoretical la la land. I doubt the Supreme Court will ever address the issue and if it does, even the conservatives like Scalia and Thomas probably wouldn't find America to be a "Christian Nation" in a public, civil sense.

But, as a legal claim, it still might be a fun thing to explore. And I'm not aware of any book that quite approaches the Christian Nation question from this angle. Alan Dershowitz's Blasphemy and The Godless Constitution, by Cornell's Kramnick and Moore, both of which I've read, are the closest that come to mind. Those books in many ways only superficially deal with the legal claim. I'd have to make sure I offered something fresh and new. It wouldn't quite be the secular leftist polemics that theirs were. And in a sense I think they overstated their claims, using "law office" history. Mine might be a book that Justices Scalia and Thomas (and the liberals) would find comfortable citing (I doubt the conservatives would with the other two books).

It's just a thought. I've got a book in me on this matter. I'm just waiting till I find my right angle.

Cato Symposium on Political Theology

The Cato Institute was nice enough to reproduce a post of mine reacting to their symposium on political theology. The topic at hand was one Professor Mark Lilla's book entitled, "The Stillborn God." Lilla argues that America, a liberal democracy (for those politically illiterate folks, a "constitutional republic" is a FORM of a "liberal democracy") doesn't have a political theology because, as it turns out, the atheist Thomas Hobbes is the Founder of modern liberal democratic notions of government. Locke, Lilla and his fellow Straussians argue, was imbibed in Hobbes' teachings. (Indeed, Hobbes was the first to put forth the notion of the "state of nature" key to Locke's political theory.)

Anyway, here is an excerpt from my article:

In studying their public and private writings in detail I have concluded that America’s principle founders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin) were not closet atheists but really did believe in this rational, benevolent, unitarian deity who fit their republican ideals much better than the Biblical God could. The inescapable conclusion is that America does have a political theology; it is just not Christianity....Nature’s God was theologically unitarian, universalist (did not eternally damn anyone) syncretist (most or all world religions worshipped Him), partially inspired the Christian Scriptures, and man’s reason was ultimate device for understanding Him. He was not quite the strict Deist God that some secular scholars have made Him out to be. But neither was He the Biblical God. Rather, somewhere in between.

The political-theological problem America’s founders thus faced is they needed to and did appeal to a God that orthodox Christians did not worship. Such Christianity was socially and institutionally entrenched at the state level during America’s founding era. Though, some studies have shown huge portions of the American populace during the founding era were nominal or unchurched Christians. When the first four Presidents invoked this God in their public supplications, they systematically used generic or philosophical terms for God so as not to contradict either their heterodox opinions on God or the orthodox opinions of the masses (or least the churches to which the masses belonged). In doing so, they established America’s civil religion.

How America Could Be a "Christian Nation"

In a past post I wrote it's impossible for America to be a "Christian Nation" because you first have to define the term "Christianity," whose definition is disputed, and the doctrine of unalienable rights central to the American Founding forbids government from resolving this issue.

Yet, America does have a theistic or metaphysical underpinning -- see the Declaration of Independence. And America's Founders invoked quite a bit, a generically defined "Providence." In short, America's political theology is a generic Providentialism -- a natural religion discoverable from reason, that is compatible with Christianity and all sorts of heretical non-Christian systems.

When it comes to defining Christianity, to tell you the truth, I can't do it. When debating the Christian Nationalists, I often say America's key Founders (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Wilson and Hamilton) weren't "Christians"; but that's only because I take their understanding of "Christianity" (which they equate with orthodox Trinitarianism) as an assumed premise.

You see, I'm not a Christian, but a detached scholar of Christianity; so I really don't have a dog in the fight over "what is Christianity." I just know if Christianity defines as the "Christian Nation" crowd defines it, America wasn't founded to be a Christian Nation and America's key Founders weren't "Christians."

There are other ways to define and understand the term Christian however. As opposed to the narrow "orthodox" understanding, the "broad" understanding that encompasses all sorts of nominal, theologically liberal, and heretical Christianities. In this broad sense, America's Founders could be considered "Christian" and so could America's Founding political theology.

My friend Eric Alan Isaacson is a prominent attorney and present day member of the Unitarian Universalist Church. He helped author their interfaith, "friend of the court" brief in support of gay marriage in California. In replying to one of my posts where I assumed the "narrow," orthodox understanding of Christianity, he argued for the "broader" understanding, which, if accepted, we could term America's key Founders "Christian" and America a "Christian Nation." Notice his discussion on the Mormons. I think Mormons are a good test case. The Mormon faith is closer to what America's key Founders believed than is the orthodox Christian faith. This is probably because Mormons, looking to America's Founding for inspiration, incorporated some the Founders' eccentric "a-biblical" theological elements. Anyway, Mr. Isaacson's note follows:

Hi Jonathan,

I’m troubled by those who insist that only people who believe in one way can be “true Christians.” If Mormons consider themselves followers of Jesus, that’s good enough for me to regard them as Christians. If Trinitarian Evangelicals regard themselves as followers of Jesus, I’ll consider them Christians too — even though, so far as I can tell, Jesus never claimed to be God.

If someone like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley honored Jesus and endeavored to follow his teachings, they should not be denied the name “Christian” merely because others who claim that name have embraced any number of extra-biblical doctrines.

I’ve heard Catholics occasionally say that theirs is the only “true church,” suggesting perhaps that Protestants are not truly Christians. I’ve heard Protestant preachers denounce the Pope as the Anti-Christ, insisting that Catholics can’t be true Christians because they follow the Pope rather than Christ.

I must confess, such attitudes offend my sensibilities.

And yet, I find you, an open-minded and liberal chap, adopting the same stance, and suggesting that Unitarians and Mormons can’t be Christians.

I am reminded, quite frankly, of how New Hampshire’s Supreme Court ruled in 1868 the Dover, New Hampshire, First Unitarian Society of Christians’ chosen minister — the Rev. Francis Ellingwood Abbot — was insufficiently “Christian” to serve the Congregation that had called him. Justice Jonathan Everett Sargent’s opinion for the court quoted passages from Abbot’s sermons, to show that the minister was too open-minded to serve his congregation.

The Rev. Abbot, after all, had once preached:

“Whoever has been so fired in his own spirit by the overwhelming thought of the Divine Being as to kindle the flames in the hearts of his fellow men, whether Confucius, or Zoroaster, or Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammed, has proved himself to be a prophet of the living God; and thus every great historic religion dates from a genuine inspiration by the Eternal Spirit.”

In another sermon, Rev. Abbot even declared:

“America is every whit as sacred as Judea. God is as near to you and to me, as ever he was to Moses, to Jesus, or to Paul. Wherever a human soul is born into the love of truth and high virtue, there is the ‘Holy Land.’ Wherever a human soul has uttered its sincere and brave faith in the Divine, and thus bequeathed to us the legacy of inspired words, there is the ‘Holy Bible.’”

“If Protestantism would include Mr. Abbot in this case,” Justice Sargent opined for New Hampshire’s highest court, “it would of course include Thomas Jefferson, and by the same rule also Thomas Paine, whom Gov. Plumer of New Hampshire called ‘that outrageous blasphemer,’ that ‘infamous blasphemer,’ ‘that miscreant Paine,’ whose ‘Age of Reason’ Plumer had read ‘with unqualified disapprobation of its tone and temper, its course vulgarity, and its unfair appeals to the passions and prejudices of his readers.’”

Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9, 16 Am. Rep. 82, 1868 N.H. LEXIS 47 (1868). See Charles B. Kinney, Jr., Church & State: The Struggle for Separation in New Hampshire, 1630-1900 113 (New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univ., 1955) (“One of the more celebrated cases in New Hampshire jurisprudence is that of Hale versus Everett.”); Carl H. Esbeck, Dissent and Disestablishment: The Church-State Settlement in the Early American Republic, 2004 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1385, 1534 n.541 (“As late as 1868, the state supreme court decided that a Unitarian minister would not be allowed to use the town meeting house because of his heterodoxy, and in spite of being called and settled by a majority of the community.”).

You might suppose that being run out of the pulpit would sour the Rev. Abbot in his attitudes toward those who thought themselves more orthodox than he was. You would be wrong. Abbot went on to edit The Index, and on his retirement from that position in 1880 addressed those who gathered in his honor: “I know we are here Unitarians and Non-Unitarians, and I rejoice to stand with Christians, with Catholic and Protestant Christians alike, for justice and purity; and I will always do so. These things are more important than our little differences of theological opinion.” Farewell Dinner to Francis Ellingwood Abbot, on Retiring from the Editorship of “The Index” 14 (Boston: George H. Ellis, 1880) (remarks of Rev. Abbot, June 24, 1880).

It may be noted that Frederick Douglass praised Rev. Abbot for doing “much to break the fetters of religious superstition, for which he is entitled to gratitude.” Farewell Dinner, supra, at p. 48 (letter of June 15, 1880, from Frederick Douglass to the Rev. M.J. Savage).

I think it a tremendous mistake, Jonathan, for you to side with the likes of Justice Sargent, who think they are entitled to determine who can, and who cannot, be called a true “Christian.” In truth, Justice Sargent may have been somewhat more liberal in his attitudes than you are – for he and the New Hampshire Supreme Court at least accepted the notion that one can be a genuine Unitarian Christian, even as they ruled that Rev. Abbot was far too unorthodox even to preach in a Unitarian church.

Peace be with you!

Eric Alan Isaacson

Now if the "Christian Nationalists" could embrace the above mentioned understanding of the term "Christian," we'd have nothing to argue about.

"Christian Nation" Doctrine Actually Trumps Democracy

Another Christian Zealot Seeks
to Create an American Theocracy
by Brad Hart

While perusing the Internet, I stumbled upon a website that I am sure some of you are already familiar with. I think it deserves special mention here on this blog because it is a great illustration of how distorted and dangerous the Christian Nationalist agenda can become. The website, entitled, Is America a Christian Nation, is dedicated to the mainstream Christian founding myth -- i.e. America was established by devout orthodox Christians, over the years we have lost our way and forgotten our heritage, but we can and will bring back our Christian roots.

Like most pro-Christian nation websites, this page claims to present concrete evidence that gives 100% proof of America's Christian founding. Right from the start, the website points to the 1892 Supreme Court case, Holy Trinity Church v. The United States, which this website's author believes is ample proof of America's Christian heritage. However, the author neglects to mention the fact that this case had absolutely NOTHING to do with establishing America as a Christian nation. In fact, the case actually dealt with the issue of, "the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia." In the course of the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Brewer used the case to promote HIS belief that the United States was established as a Christian nation. As Justice Brewer stated:

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Legal historians, however, point to the fact that Justice Brewer's "Christian nation" comments occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement that sets legally binding precedent.

Unfortunately, the author of Is America a Christian Nation does not understand the concept of legal dicta, nor does he/she understand how to put historical data into context. As the author ignorantly points out:

The Court did not merely say that most people in America were Christian, or that there were no Muslims or Hindus in America. According to the author of the Court's unanimous opinion, the Court's claim that America "is a Christian nation" is in "the domain of official action and recognition," not mere "individual acceptance." The Court demonstrates that our entire system of government was created with a duty to acknowledge the authority of the God of the Christian Bible, and to obey His commandments, by Christians who acknowledged the authority of God and were committed to obey His commandments [and] intended the government they created to acknowledge and obey God.

It is also important to point out that Holy Trinity v. United States was actually overruled in 1931 by U.S. v. Macintosh, which stated:

Whereas in Holy Trinity v. U.S., the Court held that because this was a Christian nation, all laws were qualified by a higher law, and no law could be interpreted in such a way as to exclude a Christian minister from entering the United States, the Macintosh Court, fully cognizant of the rule in Holy Trinity, completely reverses the rule, refuses to place the nation "under God," and instead declares that the State-as-god is owed "unqualified allegiance."

For obvious reasons, the author of Is America A Christian Nation neglected to mention much about this little tidbit of history!

Another bizarre source that Is America A Christian Nation sites has to do with the 17th century settlement of America by the Pilgrims. On the web page, the author states:

From its earliest founding in the 1600's, each American colony was a Christian Theocracy. "Theocracy" means "ruled by God," not "ruled by priests." A nation "under God" is a "Theocracy" by definition. There was universal agreement that the formation of civil government was a religious/Christian/Biblical obligation. All governments were Theocratic. Governments were formed because it was believed God in the Bible commanded human beings to form them. The founding of a government was a religious act. Under the new federal government which began under the U.S. Constitution on March 4, 1789, the United States were Christian Theocracies. The U.S. Constitution would never have been ratified if it gave power to the newly-created federal government to prevent the United States from being "under God" and officially and legally acknowledging themselves to be under His jurisdiction.

Not only is this bold proclamation utterly wrong, but it is also a potentially dangerous mode of thinking, as evidenced by the author's following statement:

American liberals HATE the word "theocracy." All you have to do to discredit an idea is accuse it of being connected in some way with "theocracy."

"Theocracy" literally means "ruled by God." It has nothing to do with priests. America was supposed to be a nation "under God." If America is under God, then God is over America. That's the literal meaning of "theocracy."

The mainstream media use "theocracy" as a scare word. They want you to think of Osama bin Laden instead of Jesus Christ. They want you to think of "tyranny under god" rather than Liberty Under God. Many writers who deny America's Christian history attempt to confuse you with caricatures of intolerant right-wing religious tyrants.

So, what is so unsettling about the author's claims? Think about it. He/she is actually insinuating that the United States is NOT a democracy, but is instead a Christian Theocracy. Of course the author neglects to mention which Christian God we are under. Is it the God of the Catholics? Protestants? Mormons?

What is most unsettling about this argument is the fact that free speech/will is utterly denied. Under the Theocratic government suggested by this author, God has the final say in all issues. There is no room for individual debate. The Bible becomes the final judge and governing document, not the Constitution.

As a devout Christian myself, I understand the desire that exists for God to be a fundamental part of society. However, as we have learned through thousands of years of world history, a large number of Theocratic governments end up being the most intolerant, brutal, undemocratic and destructive regimes. Or as Thomas Jefferson put it:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.

For a Christian Nationalist to suggest that America is not a Democracy but instead a Theocracy should immediately cause us to raise our red warning flags and sound the alarm.

Brookhiser on Religious America

Peter Robinson interviews Richard Brookhiser about his book What Would the Founders Do?, on National Review Online. The latest segment is about "religious America" versus "Christian America," and it touches issues broached frequently in this space (e.g., Washington's "Providence") Most of it is run-of-the mill, but Robinson asks an intriguing question towards the end, inquiring whether the First Amendment represented a culmination of Enligthenment insight or simply a ratification of practical experience (referring for the latter to David Hackett Fisher's seminal book of some years ago, Albion's Seed.) Brookhiser's answer barely skims the surface of the implications the question raises, but he's on the right path by suggesting that there's a way to reconcile the two possibilities.

Meanwhile, an excerpt from Broohiser's book that might be apropos:

In moments of struggle, farce, or disaster, the founders are still with us. We look to them for slogans, cheap shots, inspiration and instruction. We seize on them for sleazy advantage and for moral guidance. We ransack what they said and did for clues to what they would, and what we should, do.

Revolution: change and the Jews - Irving Levitas

The The Chronicle Papers - views of American Life, page 70
The Chronicle Papers: A collection of newspaper articles originally carried by The Yonkers Jewish Chronicle (1976-1979) by Dr. Irving Levitas, 1910 - 1987.

The word "revolution" is originally derived from astronomy [astrology], wherein the early star-gazers spoke of the "circles" [circuits] of the planets made around the earth. This conveys an original idea of revolution, namely, that it is an attempt to "return to original sources. No revolutionist saw such ever spoke in other terms. To him, a "revolution" was an attempt to return to what had been "originally" the social situation before institutionalization had "corrupted" the original source. Thus, there is always in a revolution the idea the overthrow of the state of affairs at the time of revolution is a good thing. It means that overthrow, the original purity of the social life will be constituted.

...

During the Renaissance and Reformation, certain ideas were born and nurtured. One of the most basic of these ideas was called "sensualism." Today, that word is in bad repute, but this was not the case two or three hundred years ago. What the term meant then was that all our knowledge comes from our five senses, from what we see, hear, feel, touch or smell. Thus whatever we know is something that came from the five senses and nowhere else. This meant that anyone who claimed that he had knowledge from revelation or through heredity or by some non-sensory means, was either a liar or, worse, was desirous of entrapping men in some nefarious scheme.

This became the famous theory of John Locke, the philosopher of the revolutions of the eighteenth century, that when was born, their minds were like a blank writing-board, a "tabula rasa." On that writing board, experiences wrote in each individual case; whatever one person saw, heard, felt, touched or smelled made its mark on the board, and only those marks made up knowledge. And French thinkers like Condillac and de Tracy were to transform Locke into a theory of revolution, just as Locke was the "philosopher" of the American Revolution of 1776.

...

In political terms, what this implied was that organized religion as then practiced, with the clergy reading to parishioners from a book they couldn't read, was not the best was to learn truths. Better to learn that truth yourself through personal experiences than to just listen to someone talk about them. Besides, and this was to be most significant, experiences someone else had were "second-hand," and not as reliable as experiences you yourself could or have had. That was the import of the Protestant Reformation, both in its Lutheran and Calvinist variety; read the Bible yourself; don't depend on someone else reading it for you. What helped that Reformation (and Revolutions that were to follow) was the invention of printing, which made that Bible and other books available to everyone who could read, and in their own languages, too, thus removing the elite that could read Latin(or Hebrew) where the others could not.

And of equal importance was the neutral (if not negative) attitude this philosophy encouraged towards the immediate past, the past between the original state of affairs before corruption had entered, when people who used authority for their statements used it to become powerful. Then came these people (kings, nobility, clergy, etc.) who abused that authority based on their "more than sense-knowledge," such as birth, or revelation, or some non-natural cause, who "corrupted" society. That period of "corruption" was a huge mistake to the revolutionists and was to be eradicated from history; they called it "the Dark Ages," usually meaning the Middle Ages.

Now, the effect on the Jews of these ideas of the Revolutions in America in 1776 and in France in 1789 were to be tremendous. By emphasizing equal opportunities to get sense-experiences, they were to break down the ghettos and let Jews out to get these necessary experiences. By demoting elitist authority (the clergy), they were to open the door to individual interpretations of the Tannach (witness Spinoza). And, by making the political expression of this philosophy a democratic society, they were to offer the Jews an opportunity to take part in a general social group, not isolated in a ghetto, or Pale or Settlement. Where the Renaissance had opened the way to a non-Christian culture, which was to benefit Jewish emancipation, and the Reformation was to divide Christianity, which also helped that emancipation, the Revolutions in America and France were to open the doors to political and social change.

Modern Jewish history begins then with these two Revolutions. In the American Revolution, a course of action to result in the development of the largest Jewish community gathered in one country in all of Jewish history; the French Revolution was to lead to changes directly in Jewish social and intellectual structure, to be brought over to the Jewish community of the United States later, but within Europe itself, to lead to Jewish Reform. Jewish Orthodoxy (Jewish Conservatism is entirely an American product), Jewish Socialism (and Communism), Zionism (Jewish Nationalism), and Jewish Secularism. All of these latter movements were to find a home here in the United States, ... .

The two Revolutions are the climax of the Renaissance and the Reformation, of Nationalism and Liberalism, all of which were to be born before the 1750's. But it was after that period 1776 and 1789, that the results were to be felt. And they are still with us today.

Revisiting Salem: Part I

The Economics of Witchcraft
by Brad Hart

Over the past week I have had the wonderful opportunity of delving into the July, 2008 issue of the William and Mary Quarterly, which is almost exclusively dedicated to a reexamination of the Salem Witch Trials. Though the history surrounding Salem during the latter part of the 17th century has received an incredible amount of attention, I believe that anytime the “flagship” journal of early American history decides to revisit a topic, we would all do well to follow suit. With this in mind, I hope to dedicate the next three or four of my posts on this blog to a review of the Salem historical record and the assessment offered by various historians on this topic in the WMQ.

As mentioned before, the history surrounding the Salem Witch Trials is one of the more popular events in all of American colonial history. Literally hundreds of books and articles have been written over the centuries, making 17th century Salem one of the most publicized events in our nation’s past. While this overabundance of scholarly literature may discourage some historians from engaging in a revision of the Salem saga, other devout students of early American history remain undeterred. As historian Richard Latner of Tulane University states:

The 1692 Salem witchcraft outbreak has had an enduring capacity for attracting popular and scholarly attention…Richly complex and layered, it is continuously amenable to fresh investigation. Thus, though the harvest of books and articles on Salem may deter researchers from this well-trodden terrain, ample rewards may result not only from formulating new interpretations but also from reexamining prevailing conceptualizations. [1]

It is this fresh perspective, a desire to challenge the traditional historiography of the Salem story, that demands our attention. For too long Salem and its witchcraft legacy have been oversimplified to the point that its participants are hardly recognized. The traditional Salem scholarship of the past, most of which portrays the witchcraft “outbreak” as a virtual plague centered in the Puritan “age of superstition,” causes us to see these early Puritans as quasi-madmen, bent on eradicating even the smallest trace of witchcraft.

In Richard Latner’s analysis of Salem, however, we are presented with a colonial society deeply divided by factionalism. During the 1690s, Salem was a community immersed in transition. The traditional covenant community based exclusively on a subsistence agricultural system was rapidly being replaced with the emerging forces of merchant capitalism. As a result, Salem’s population was thrown into a world of economic instability and transition. As Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum point out in their groundbreaking book, Salem Possessed, “the prosaic, everyday lives of obscure and inarticulate men and women…were being shaped by powerful forces of historical and economic change.” [2]

Due in part to these economic changes, the poorer segments of the Salem population found themselves in a state of financial instability. In addition, the ecclesiastical leaders of Salem, still awaiting a new royal charter from England, began to see their authority erode from underneath their feet. The increased level of factionalism between Salem Town and Salem Village – which had remained divided for decades – began to coalesce into rival economic segments of society. Contrary to popular belief, it was the witch-hunters, not the common citizen that were “in retreat” from the “oppressive” advances of those in Salem Town, where merchant capitalism was at its strongest.[3]

It was this internal division, argues Richard Latner that helped to create an atmosphere in which witchcraft accusations could flourish. The initial accusation of Reverend Samuel Parris’ daughter and niece are perfect case studies of how factionalism played out during the witch-hunt fiasco. The accusers, mostly consisting of paranoid clergymen bent on regaining their authority, preyed upon the economic plight of the poorer segment within Salem Village. As a result of their efforts, the overzealous clergy of Salem Town found all the support they would need to levy their accusations of witchcraft. As Christine Alice Young points out:

The powers of witches, were associated with mercantile activity within Salem Town, not the agricultural hinterland of Salem Village…it was impossible in seventeenth-century Massachusetts to simultaneously be a merchant and a leader of the orthodox, anticommercial party in colonial politics. [4]

With the backing of the economically downtrodden, Salem became a haven for radical accusation and religious over zealotry. The opposition, most of which was centered in Salem Town, found themselves virtually helpless against the “brainwashed” – intolerant is probably a more appropriate label -- masses of Salem Village.

While Latner’s economic explanations for Salem’s transgressions are convincing, it is important to remember that economics is but one of many factors that led to the witchcraft accusations of 17th century Salem. In the next few days, I hope to provide additional perspectives, the majority coming from the most recent edition of the William and Mary Quarterly, which I hope will provide an overall historical "landscape" of the Salem saga.

Notes:
[1] Richard Latner, “Salem Witchcraft, Factionalism, and Social Change Reconsidered: Were Salem’s Witch-Hunters Modernization’s Failures?” William and Mary Quarterly, vol. LXV, no. 3, Pp. 423.
[2] Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), xii.
[3] Ibid, 425-426.
[4] Christine Alice Young, Good Order to Glorious Revolution: Salem, Massachusetts, 1628-1689 (Ann Arbor, Mi., 1980), 7.

Pray for Rain

This past week, Focus on the Family posted a video encouraging its followers to pray for rain during Barack Obama's DNC acceptance speech, scheduled for August 28. So why am I posting this on a website that is dedicated to religion during America's founding? Well, two reasons: First this is a topic that is sure to inspire debate. Second, I remember reading somewhere (and for the life of me I cannot find the source) that Alexander Hamilton suggested the exact same thing, except he wanted it to rain during Jefferson's inauguration.

Have any of you heard the same thing? If so, do you have the source I am desperately seeking? In the meantime, I hope you will all enjoy the "Christ-like" video made by Focus on the Family:

Biblical Truths in the Declaration of Independence

Most "secular un-nationalists" will argue that the Declaration of Independence is a document that is free from religious connotation, or at least neutral in its sentiments on deity. This is not the case. The Declaration of Independence is a document that incorporates a large number of biblical beliefs. But don't take my word for it, see it for yourself:

Case #1: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

Biblical truth: Moses 6:6 "Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments."

***Just as the Lord was able to free the children of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, so too was he able to grant freedom and independence to the American colonies over the British.

Case #2: "and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

Biblical Truth: Genesis 1: 29-31 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

***Despite the ridiculous claims of secularists, the God of Nature is simply the God of creation. He is not a neutral God, nor is he a God for the Deists and Unitarians. The God of nature is the Christian God pure and simple.

Case #3: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Biblical Truth: Acts 10:34 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons."

Case #4: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Biblical Truth: Acts 22:28 "And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born."

Case #5: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Biblical Truth: Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Case #6: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Biblical Truth: 2 Samuel 11:25 "Then David said unto the messenger, Thus shalt thou say unto Joab, Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth one as well as another: make thy battle more strong against the city, and overthrow it."

***As was the case with David, the Founding Fathers understood that they had no other choice but to rebel against the established government of their land.

The Founders, Religion, and Context

Context is everything. I see the Christian America side as utterly misunderstanding context when they quote the key Founders in favor of their thesis. Yet, when I offer brief quotations invariably I get accused of the same thing; or in the absence seeing the entire passage, folks skeptical of my ideas refuse to believe my conclusions in the absence of seeing the context.

I believe context is clearly on my side; but ultimately it's in the eye of the beholder. Right now, I am going to post a link to an entire letter of John Adams' -- to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813. What follows will be Gregg Frazer's exegesis of the letter. This way all readers can check Frazer's interpretation with the original and hopefully will conclude that he is being faithful to context. The letter is one of Adams' clearest explications of "theistic rationalism" or "unitarianism." Yet, it also contains a quotation that the Christian America side loves to quote out of context. Dr. Frazer originally explained the context on this Internet forum. The context of the debate is a brief quotation found in that letter where Adams finds "Christian principles" in Hinduism and essentially says Hindus worship the same God as Christians. As Adams put it:

Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.”

A Christian America apologist could hope that the quotation could be explained away in context. But, rather the context demonstrates Adams was a theistic rationalist who believed most or all religions, including Hinduism, worshipped the same God as Christians. As Dr. Frazer wrote to a "Christian America" apologist:

Re the Adams Hindu quote: the only way FOR YOU to understand Adams’s quote is to “ASSUME” what he clearly did not mean (if one knows the context — which I do). In context, he has just said: “Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. … no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.” [the latter refers, of course, to the Bible and its inferiority to philosophy] He goes on to say: “Philosophy looks with an impartial eye on all terrestrial religions” and then talks about the Bible further. About the Bible, he then says: “such parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future investigation.” He then talks about Joseph Priestley (his spiritual mentor) and about various religious systems he and Priestley have encountered, including Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Plato, the Brahmins, and then the Shastra — and the quoted commentary on the Shastra. A paragraph later, he says “these doctrines, sublime, if ever there were any sublime, Pythagoras learned in India, and taught them to Zaleucus and his other disciples.” Earlier in the same letter, he said: “The preamble to the laws of Zaleucus, which is all that remains, is as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s ….” This is critical because Priestley is Adams’s (& Jefferson’s) spiritual mentor and because the laws of Zaleucus were supposedly handed down to pagans from Athena! SO YOU SEE THAT HE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED CHRISTIANITY IN THE COMPARISON! Further, if a set of laws supposedly handed down from Athena 600 years before the birth of Christ can be considered “Christian” — what real meaning does the term have for Adams? See, you have to find out what THEY meant by the terms they used.

I reproduced this except at Positive Liberty and a reader, skeptical of Dr. Frazer's interpretation, quoted out of context from that very letter, the passage that the Christian Nation crowd loves to quote. Adams did indeed write:

I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my streightened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have seen: and such Parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future investigation.

The Christian Nation crowd usually stops after "best book in the world," because what comes next begins to belie the message they want to read into Adams' sentiments -- that he was a Christian who believed the Bible infallible. But, again, the context, demonstrates otherwise. As Dr. Frazer put it:

Re Adams’s comment about the Bible...: he declares the Bible “the best book in the world,” but that doesn’t change the fact (as he has just asserted) that it does not supersede philosophy. Indeed, he says it is the best BECAUSE it contains more of HIS philosophy than any other — not because it is inspired or infallible — but because it agrees with him! Then, having established that the Bible does not supersede philosophy and having determined that it is the best book BECAUSE it “contains more of my little philosophy” than any other, he says that there are parts which he cannot reconcile to his philosophy — which means they’re wrong! They cannot supersede philosophy and what is best is HIS philosophy.

Again, the context of Adams' Dec. 25 1813 letter to Jefferson shows him to be not an orthodox Christian, but a theistic rationalist. If you are skeptical, check the context.

Locke, the Ultimate "Whig"

Thomas Jefferson identified "Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. .." as the chief ideological sources behind the Declaration of Independence. Two of those sources, Locke and Sidney were part of the early "Whig" movement in Britain. (Later British Whigs like Joseph Priestley, Richard Price and James Burgh were contemporaries of and friends with America's Founders). So kudos to Tom Van Dyke for writing about both of those figures who greatly influenced America's Founding.

While, alas, not as many are aware of Sidney, most students of American history realize that John Locke's philosophy was central to the US Founding. So we go back and venerate him and turn him into a larger than like figure. I'd like more folks to appreciate just how radical and controversial Locke's and Sidney's ideas were for their time. Let us emphasize how Sidney was executed for his politically dissident ideas and Locke fled England for the continent and, consequently, published his political and religious tracts anonymously, lest he meet Sidney's same fate.

This well illustrates the difference between "common law" principles on the one hand and "Whig" on the other. Common law principles were those common "rights of Englishmen" that were very traditional and had been evolving for hundreds of years. "Whig" principles, on the other hand, were much more radical, revolutionary, dissident, and pro-political liberty. For instance jurist English William Blackstone, the most notable "common law" source, was a Tory and against the American side in the Revolution.

Those were two of five sources that Harvard Historian Bernard Bailyn identifies as making up the ideology of the American Founding. The other three were Christian principles, Greco-Roman principles, and Enlightenment principles. Not all of these sources were "mutually exclusive." One could argue that Locke represented "Christian," "Whig," and "Enlightenment" all three at the same time. Enlightenment and Whig were key in my humble opinion.

Reading the Great Thinkers, Part Deux

Or: What was John Locke up to, anyway?
By Tom Van Dyke

OK, you read Part Un... What a minute, you did read Part Un, din't you? If you didn't, that's OK, go back and check it out. We'll wait.

[Da-da-dee... Really, no time pressure. Take your time. Read it twice. It was written and re-written at least four times...]

OK, welcome back. Now you know the drill. What's wrong with this cover?




Hehe. That's right. John Locke originally published The Reasonableness of Christianity anonymously, too.


Why would he do such a thing?


The first answer is that he didn't want the Holy Rollers to come down on his head although they did anyway, specifically a hotdog named John Edwards. A well-founded fear, then.

The second answer is that John Locke was a genuine philosopher; philosophers take no conventions for granted. They test and prove, and most importantly, ask the Big Questions over and over. Locke asks these questions until the end of his life, his studies and thoughts increasingly concentrating on the Bible and Christian theology, and his next set of answers is interrupted only by death. He wasn't interested in being either a public intellectual or a preacher. He just wanted people to ask themselves the same questions he was asking of himself.

It's indisputable that Locke ended up with some answers that were in conflict with the prevailing Christian orthodoxy of England in the late 1600s. But what is his purpose in writing The Reasonableness of Christianity? To reform the prevailing theology? Who is he writing to?

I submit it's the "cool guys," the intellectuals, the "philosophers," who are finding Christianity a bit too quaint and besides, are understandably repulsed by self-appointed defenders of the faith like the aforementioned John Edwards, real jerks. Christians tend to give Christianity a bad name.

So when John Locke publishes this title page [1696] as his motivation and intention,


I tend to take him at his word.

All I can offer in support is my own testimony, folks. If you google "tom van dyke" and locate his various writings on politics and faith, you won't find arguments claiming the Christian religion is true.

But you might find him [me] clearing up various misconceptions about it, arguing against either cementheaded interpretations of Scripture or against cementheaded ridicule of it. I might not argue for Christianity or even the existence of God, but I do freely argue for their possibility as being the truth.

So who do I write to? I don't frequent the sites dominated by orthodoxers like John Edwards; I find such folks tend to be beyond reason, or even feeling, and I don't see any point in debating the subtleties of dogma. When at an advanced age, Ben Franklin was quizzed about the divinity of Jesus, and he replied he'd find out soon enough. Well, I'm not quite of advanced age, but I find his answer servicable.

And so, I write for the "cool guys" [and gals] in fora like this one, simply asking them to keep the Big Questions open in their minds and hearts. It would be the philosophical thing for them to do. Whatever Locke's faith was, he wouldn't argue from it, God forbid, because one man's faith is another man's nonsense.

If you were to collect and title my own published canon, you might title it something like The Reasonableness of Christianity. When you read John Locke, think of me every now and again, because whenever I write, I think of him.

Translated from Latin: "Near this place lies John Locke. If you ask what kind of a man he was, he answers that he lived content with his own small fortune. Bred a scholar, he made his learning subservient only to the cause of truth. This you will learn from his writings, which will show you everything else concerning him, with greater truth, than the suspect praises of an epitaph. His virtues, indeed, if he had any, were too little for him to propose as matter of praise to himself, or as an example to you. Let his vices be buried with him. Of good life, you have an example in the gospel, should you desire it; of vice, would there were none for you; of mortality, surely you have one here and everywhere, and may you learn from it. That he was born on the 29th of August in the year of our Lord 1632, and that he died on the 28th of October in the year of our Lord 1704, this tablet, which itself will soon perish, is a record."
---John Locke's reputed epitaph.

I got it off the Wiki, although this book from 1809 might be a more authoritative source. My Latin is weak, and I can't afford a plane ticket to London to check it out for us all just now. To our friend and faithful commenter OFT: Here is your conscientious reply re Locke, as promised. I hope it surprised you, at least just a little.