I'm Seeing Kansas

Tomorrow at the Patriots Theater in Trenton, with the Trenton Symphonic Orchestra.

I doubt they'll play the following song "Distant Vision," from their 2000 album Somewhere to Elsewhere. It's about Christopher Columbus and was penned by Kerry Livgren. Livgren, their chief writer during their heyday, became a born again Christian and stopped touring with Kansas but still writes, plays and associates with them from time to time. Livgren recently suffered a massive stroke (ironic in that becoming an evangelical Christian helped him to clean up his act long before the others). Livgren played on their DVD There's Know Place Like Home, (which JUST came out on Oct 13). That may well be his last live performance given the severity of the stroke.

Here is the audio followed by the lyrics. I thought I'd post it to American Creation given the controversy over Christopher Columbus the past few days:

On a night as I lay sleeping, in a dream I
saw the shore of a distant land where/
Promise lay in wait/ And I heard the
sound of voices of a million hungry
souls/ Now it comes to me to lead them to the gate

But I am just a man, not worthy of this
plan / With a strength that's not my own,
I must rise

And I...will bear the light, ( and the
vision leads me onward) / That
blind....men have their sight / I'd sail a
thousand seas to make it so

To the Kings I gave the mission, in the
hope that they would share / In the joy
of setting countless captives free / But
the lust for Gold and power, is luring us
away / From a calling that began in purity

And I'm still just a man, not worthy of
this plan / With a strength that's not my
own, I must rise

Now a tempest rages in my heart, as this
fever furies on / Soon these islands
promise rest and hope, my answers wait
beyond their shore / Dream on...

Hungry eyes are standing on the sand,
they beckon us to bring the tide /
Sovereign hand must hold me now, I plead
with you / Be my solace and my guide...by
my side

And I...will walk with you / On the
shores of the land of promise / That
blind...men see you too / I'd sail a thou-
sand seas to make it so

The Anti-PC Christopher Columbus

The Christopher Columbus Controversy
By Michael S. Berliner
Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Columbus Day approaches, but to the "politically correct" this is no cause for celebration. On the contrary, they view the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492 as an occasion to be mourned. They have mourned, they have attacked, and they have intimidated schools across the country into replacing Columbus Day celebrations with "ethnic diversity" days.

The politically correct view is that Columbus did not discover America, because people had lived here for thousands of years. Worse yet, it's claimed, the main legacy of Columbus is death and destruction. Columbus is routinely vilified as a symbol of slavery and genocide, and the celebration of his arrival likened to a celebration of hitler and the holocaust. The attacks on Columbus are ominous, because the actual target is Western civilization.

Did Columbus "discover" America? Yes--in every important respect. This does not mean that no human eye had been cast on America before Columbus arrived. It does mean that Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world, i.e., to the growing, scientific civilizations of Western Europe. The result, ultimately, was the United States of America. It was Columbus' discovery for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people on which this nation was founded--and on which it still rests. The opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and the thousands of thinkers, writers, and inventors who followed.

Prior to 1492, what is now the United States was sparsely inhabited, unused, and undeveloped. The inhabitants were primarily hunter-gatherers, wandering across the land, living from hand-to-mouth and from day-to-day. There was virtually no change, no growth for thousands of years. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits, without which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not even alive.

Columbus should be honored, for in so doing, we honor Western civilization. But the critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of Western civilization and to glorify the primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures of American Indians. They decry the glorification of the West as "Eurocentrism." We should, they claim, replace our reverence for Western civilization with multi-culturalism, which regards all cultures as morally equal. In fact, they aren't. Some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honor Western civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.

Underlying the political collectivism of the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist view of human nature. They claim that one's identity is primarily ethnic: if one thinks his ancestors were good, he will supposedly feel good about himself; if he thinks his ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel self-loathing. But it doesn't work; the achievements or failures of one's ancestors are monumentally irrelevant to one's actual worth as a person. Only the lack of a sense of self leads one to look to others to provide what passes for a sense of identity. Neither the deeds nor misdeeds of others are his own; he can take neither credit nor blame for what someone else chose to do. There are no racial achievements or racial failures, only individual achievements and individual failures. One cannot inherit moral worth or moral vice. "Self-esteem through others" is a self-contradiction.

Thus the sham of "preserving one's heritage" as a rational life goal. Thus the cruel hoax of "multicultural education" as an antidote to racism: it will continue to create more racism.

Individualism is the only alternative to the racism of political correctness. We must recognize that everyone is a sovereign entity, with the power of choice and independent judgment. That is the ultimate value of Western civilization, and it should be proudly proclaimed.

Michael S. Berliner is co-chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Christopher Columbus: A Man of God?

The Historiographical Battle
Over Columbus' Legacy

In light of my post below on Columbus Day, I thought this might be an interesting look at how some religious groups still hold strong to the notion that Christopher Columbus (a murdering, control freak, religious fanatic) was an inspired man of God.

If we look at the historiography of Columbus and his journey, we can see that it is only in recent years that his story has been judged with a more critical eye. In 1892 (the 400th anniversary of Columbus' "discovery") the historical record is saturated with glowing praise for the man and his God-given mission to the New World. In addition, Columbus essentially became an "adopted" American citizen, whose voyage became synonymous with American patriotism.

In the past 20 years, however, the study of Columbus and his voyage has taken a turn towards skepticism and critical analysis. As a result, the man and his mission have been examined through the dark lens of mass murder, religious fanaticism and navigational ineptitude, as opposed to some mission of divine intervention.

Yet despite this new trend there are still those who hold to the "traditional" interpretation of Columbus. Usually these supporters are religious conservatives who, despite the record of murder, rape and violence, still credit Columbus with having performed God's holy errand. In 1992 (the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery) Dr. De Lamar Jensen of Brigham Young University wrote the following article in the October issue of the Ensign a monthly Mormon magazine that is produced for the general membership of the church. In the article, Jensen passionately defends both Columbus and his divine mission to discover the New World:

This has not been a good season for Christopher Columbus. The 500th anniversary of his discovery of America has been marked by more condemnation than commendation, especially in the popular press. There is ample reason, however, to recognize Columbus’s courage, persistence, and unshakable convictions.

Most people living one hundred years ago and celebrating the quadricentenary of Columbus’s first voyage honored Columbus as a hero who almost singlehandedly battered down the walls of medieval ignorance. This heroic image was perpetuated partly due to his accomplishments and partly due to the myth-making of several nineteenth-century authors.

This view extended far and wide. For many, Columbus had become a world hero, slaying the dragons of dogmatism, superstition, and prejudice while carrying the banner of nineteenth-century nationalism. Writers in many countries have tried to claim Columbus as their own native son. In the past one hundred years he has been presented as Armenian, Castilian, Catalan, Corsican, English, French, German, Greek, Majorcan, Norwegian, Portuguese, even Russian. At one time, there seemed no limit to the fantasies of Columbian mythology.

Many of these myths have been debunked over the years, including the notion that Columbus was the only person of his day to believe the earth was round and that Queen Isabel pawned her jewels to finance the first voyage. These and other legends die slowly. Many still resist any attempt to show Columbus as a human being, with vices as well as virtues.

Some of the debunkers, however, have become overenthusiastic, even slanderous, in their attempts to demythologize Columbus. Their approach often serves to bolster a political cause rather than promote a search for truth. Such activity is counterproductive, not because it tears down the heroic myth, but because it merely sets another myth in its place—the equally false myth of Columbus as a villain.

What, then, do we know of the real Columbus? What were his motives in pursuing his world-changing enterprise? Perhaps the greatest motivating feature of his life was his faith. His writings and the records kept by his contemporaries indicate that Columbus had unshakable faith that he was an instrument in God’s hands.

And, indeed, the Book of Mormon affirms that he was. In vision, Nephi “looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it … wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” (1 Ne. 13:12.)

Columbus’s understanding of that design may well have been limited, but his conviction of being a part of it gave him a self-assurance, even stubbornness, that both amazed and exasperated his contemporaries.

[...]

Columbus had little formal education, but he became highly competent in languages, cosmography, and nautical science, attributing all his skills to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. “For the execution of the enterprise of the Indies, I made use of neither reason nor mathematics, nor world maps,” he wrote.

Perhaps nothing irked his contemporaries more than Columbus’s frank assertion that he was divinely chosen. “God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth, of which He spoke in the Apocalypse of St. John after having spoken of it by the mouth of Isaiah,” Columbus wrote to a friend and confidant of the queen, “and he showed me where to find it.”

Columbus was convinced that the key to his enterprise was the spiritual gifts given him by the Lord: “He bestowed the arts of seamanship upon me in abundance, and has given me what was necessary from [astronomy], geometry, and arithmetic; and has given me adequate inventiveness in my soul.” Columbus was certain that God provided these gifts to be used in His service, “encouraging me to go forward, and without ceasing they inflame me with a sense of great urgency.”

We have no way of knowing how or when “the Spirit of God … wrought upon the man.” Perhaps it came in his youth in Genoa, or during his early voyages in the Mediterranean. Maybe his enthusiasm developed after he came to the busy port of Lisbon as a young man of twenty-five and met his future wife, the noble Portuguese lady Dona Felipa Perestrelo. Perhaps inspiration came while he and his bride lived in the Madeira Islands, some four hundred miles out in the Atlantic. Or it might even have been while on trading expeditions, north as far as Iceland and south along the Guinea coast of Africa. We only know that by the time he presented his project to the king of Portugal in 1484 he was obsessed with the idea of finding a western route across the Atlantic to the Indies.

[...]

After surviving a violent Atlantic storm on the return voyage, Columbus reached Palos only hours before Pinzón’s arrival. Pinzón died within a few days, leaving Columbus to receive sole praise for the discovery. Columbus himself deflected much of that praise to God. In a letter to the monarchs he wrote: “The eternal God our Lord gives to all those who walk in his path victory over things that seem impossible. And this is notably one; for, although men have talked or written of these lands, all has been conjecture. … All Christendom ought to feel delight and make great feasts and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity with many solemn prayers for the great exaltation they shall have in the turning of so many people to our holy faith.”

Nevertheless, disappointment accompanied Columbus’s ensuing voyages. On the second he found that the men he had left at La Navidad had been slain by the natives, and his explorations failed to produce much wealth. On the third voyage, he was unable to control the open rebellion that had broken out in the new colony he had founded on his second voyage. In October 1500, Columbus was arrested and deported to Spain in chains.

The humiliation was overwhelming. In a letter to a friend, Columbus wrote, “The only thing that sustains me is my hope in him who created everyone; his support has always been near. On one occasion not long ago, when I was deeply distressed, he raised me with his right arm, saying: ‘O man of little faith, arise, it is I, do not be afraid.’ ”

Later, during his fourth voyage, Columbus received another divine assurance during an extremely perilous moment when he was about to abandon all hope. “Exhausted, I fell asleep, groaning,” he reported to the sovereigns. “I heard a very compassionate voice, saying: ‘O fool and slow to believe and to serve thy God, the God of all! … Thou criest for help, doubting. Answer, who has afflicted thee so greatly and so often, God or the world? … Not one jot of His word fails; all that He promises, He performs with interest; is this the manner of men? I have said that which thy Creator has done for thee and does for all men. Now in part He shows thee the reward for the anguish and danger which thou hast endured in the service of others.’ I heard all of this as if I were in a trance, but I had no answer to give to words so true, but could only weep for my errors. He, whoever he was, who spoke to me, ended saying: ‘Fear not; have trust; all these tribulations are written upon marble and are not without cause.’ ”

Between the third and fourth voyages, Columbus busied himself with the compilation of his Book of Prophecies, in which he hoped to demonstrate the historical and prophetic meaning of his discoveries and his own role as “Christ-bearer.” 17

Most Columbus authorities have either ignored the Book of Prophecies, apologized for it, or else denounced it as the ranting of an unbalanced mind. That is unfortunate, because the book is vital to understanding Columbus’s thought and character. Columbus was a pious man and a diligent student of the Bible. He read it carefully, using the most reputable Bible commentators of his day. He also claimed to receive illumination from the Holy Spirit.

The Book of Prophecies, as compiled by Columbus with the help of his friend, Father Gaspar Gorricio, is a collection of biblical passages and interpretations of God’s plan for the unfolding of world events. Its principal themes are that prophecy was being fulfilled by the discovery of new lands and peoples and that the consummation of God’s work was fast approaching. Columbus suggested that before the final days, the gospel message must be taken to all the world and that Jerusalem must be redeemed and the temple rebuilt.

Columbus believed he was the human instrument called by God to carry out part of that divine plan. “With a hand that could be felt,” he wrote to the king and queen in a prefatory letter, “the Lord opened my mind to the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies, and he opened my will to desire to accomplish the project. This was the fire that burned within me when I came to visit Your Highnesses. … Who can doubt that this fire was not merely mine, but also the Holy Spirit who encouraged me with a radiance of marvelous illumination from his sacred Scriptures.”

In the book’s first section, Columbus presents a collection of sixty-five psalms that deal with his two major themes: the salvation of the world and the rebuilding of Zion. He calls special attention to several verses in the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zephaniah that speak of the Gentiles as a people chosen to inherit the Holy Temple, their conversion in the last days, and the gathering to Zion. The inheritance of the Gentiles is further cited from St. Augustine, whose quoting of Ps. 22:27 is paraphrased by Columbus as “All the ends of the earth and all the islands shall be converted to the Lord.” After quoting Matt. 24:14, Columbus comments that the gospel has been preached to three parts of the earth (Asia, Africa, and Europe) and now must be preached to the fourth part.

The second section of the Book of Prophecies concerns prophecies already fulfilled. The theme is the ancient greatness of Jerusalem and its subsequent fall.

In the next section, Columbus deals with prophecies of the present and near future, emphasizing the theme of salvation for all nations. Isaiah is cited frequently. Columbus then furnishes several texts from the New Testament: Matthew 2:1–2; 8:11 [Matt. 2:1–2; Matt. 8:11]; Luke 1:48; and notably John 10:16, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

The final section of the book deals with prophecies of the last days, which Columbus introduces by calling attention to Jeremiah 25 [Jer. 25], where the prophet predicts the restoration of Jerusalem prior to the Final Judgment. Finally, he quotes twenty-six scriptures that refer to the islands of the sea and their part in the last days.

The Book of Prophecies was not the ranting of a sick mind. It was the work of a religious man who was not afraid to put his ideas into action and his own life into jeopardy. Columbus knew the scriptures as well as he knew the sea, and he saw a connection between the two. The central theme of his book was that God had sketched in the Bible His plan for the salvation of all mankind and that he, Columbus, was playing a role assigned to him in that plan.

[...]

In our day the maligning has increased in intensity, but our awareness of what Columbus accomplished under God’s direction ought to remind us of our own indebtedness and responsibilities as benefactors of his fortitude. His chief concern, as ours should be, was not what people would think of him, but what God would think of him.

Yes, a unique interpretation of Columbus' voyage and mission to say the least, yet did you also notice the author's omission of the murderous atrocities committed by Columbus in the New World? How about mentioning the REASONS why Columbus was put in chains? And what about the fact that the Spanish Crown eventually condemned Columbus' acts of violence towards those Indians he was trying to convert?

Mundane details I suppose.

Should We Celebrate Columbus Day?

Columbus Day is tomorrow, so I thought a brief blog post on the often conflicted history of Christopher Columbus, his voyage and his life in general would be of interest.

517 years ago, on October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus (Cristobal Colon) made landfall on a small island in the present-day Bahamas, which he later named San Salvador. Upon his arrival, Columbus proudly declared to the native people of the island -- the Taino Indians -- that the land was forever more the domain of Spain and the Catholic Church.

As we all know, Columbus was certainly not the first person to "discover" America. Instead, Columbus came along at the perfect time. As historian Alan Taylor points out in his book, American Colonies:

Thanks to the newly invented printing press, word of Columbus’s voyage and discovery spread rapidly and widely through Europe. Eagerly read, his published report ran through nine editions in 1493 and twenty by 1500. Publication in multiplying print helped to ensure that Columbus's voyages would lead to an accelerating spiral of further voyages meant to discern the bounds and exploit the peoples of the new lands (Taylor, 35).

Thanks to the dramatic discovery, coupled with the even more dramatic tales of his journey, Columbus has been catapulted to the status of a national hero in American popular culture. In many religious circles he is seen as a pious man of God who never flinched in his quest for a New World. The following cartoon helps to demonstrate the current pop=culture interpretation of Columbus and his journey:



However exciting it may be for us to remember Columbus as a pure-hearted explorer, the historical record cannot be ignored. All surviving evidence makes it abundantly clear that Columbus was not the benevolent explorer we often consider him to be in American popular culture. Instead, Columbus was very much a tyrant who used religion to justify his acts of violence towards the native peoples of the "New World." Again, Alan Taylor points out what Columbus' real intentions were when it came to the native people of the "New World:"

Columbus hoped to convert the Indians to Christianity and to recruit their bodies and their wealth to assist Europeans in a final crusade to crush Islam and reclaim Jerusalem. Such a victory would then invite Christ’s return to earth to reign over a millennium of perfect justice and harmony (Taylor, 33).

Columbus took his newfound religious quest to another extreme when he chose to rename himself by adopting the first name of "Christoferens," or "Christ-bearer." Under the banner of a Christ-bearer, Columbus began his work of death throughout the Americas. Alan Taylor captures just how horrible these atrocities were when he writes:

Columbus distributed Indian captives among the colonists to work on their plantations and to serve as sex slaves. By 1496, Hispanola's surviving "free" natives had been rendered tributary -- obliged to bring in a quota of gold for every person over the age of fourteen.

Columbus's slaughter and enslavement of Indians troubled the pious Spanish monarchs, who declared in 1500 that the Indians were free and not subject to servitude...

...In addition to killing and enslaving the Taino, Columbus antagonized most of the colonists, who bristled at his domineering manner and hot temper. As a result, violent mutinies and more violent reprisals by Columbus induced the monarchs to revoke his executive authority in 1500. (Taylor, 37).

With such a horrible record of enslavement, brutality and death, I again pose to you all the following question: should we celebrate Columbus Day? The historian in me is conflicted. Of course Columbus' discovery is a monumental event in world history, however, the fact remains that this discovery led to mass murder. I also am of the belief that all historical events -- both good and evil -- should be remembered. However, does this mean that Columbus deserves his own national holiday?

With a demonstrable history replete with examples of tyranny, enslavement and murder, I am forced to declare: ABSOLUTELY NOT! Perhaps a "Discovery Day" or a "Native American Day" (like is already celebrated in South Dakota) would be appropriate. But a Columbus Day? Sorry, I'm not on board.

Your thoughts...

Joseph Priestley on the Swedenborgs

You can read Priestley's collection of letters to the Swedenborgs here. I'm not the first person to find these. A book in 2007 nicely sums up their contents.

Here is what Priestley writes on page two of the book:

We view with equal horror the doctrine of the trinity, consisting of three persons in one God, as equally absurd and blasphemous; constituting, in fact, three gods. For such you agree with me in thinking that three persons, each possessed of every attribute of divinity, must necessarily be, and that this doctrine is as contrary to the uniform sense of scripture, as it is repugnant to reason and the plainest common sense, though sanctioned by the most solemn decrees of councils from that of Nice to that of Trent, and by the united force of all the civil powers, in most unnatural alliance with the church of Christ.

We also agree in reprobating the whole system which has now obtained the name of calvinism, though it originated with Austin, and has been introduced into all the established creeds; a system which represents the whole human race as so fatally injured by the sin of Adam, that they retain no natural power of doing the will of God; so that had none of them been exempted from the sentence of condemnation by an arbitrary decree, they must all have been doomed to the pains of hell for ever;...

The Swedenborgians were neither unitarians nor trinitarians but believed (if I understand them right) the Trinity existed in ONE person -- Jesus Christ. They believed in other odd doctrines that merited them the label "heretic" (just as with Priestley).

James Wilson on Christianity

I've had some interesting debates on James Wilson & Religion. I think one problem is the key FFs, of which Wilson was one, could be notoriously vague and philosophical in their public addresses that invoked religion. They speak of Providence, God, and Christianity in abstract terms that permitted the "orthodox" to read in what they wished (as "Christian Nationalists" continue to do to this day). And consequently the "orthodox" consented to the FFs republican project. Indeed the internal theory of liberal democracy/constitutional republicanism DEMANDS such consent or else we have a "Crisis of the House Divided" as Harry Jaffa once put it.

So their private letters often shed light on what the key FFs were really getting at. And thus far, few if any of James Wilson's have been published (as far as I know and I've looked very carefully into the record).

But we have James Wilson's vast "public works" to examine. We see Enlightenment, particularly of the Scottish kind, Locke, and natural law in there. While he doesn't cite Thomas, he sounds like him at times, and no doubt got Thomism through the Anglican and Protestant branches of the natural law.

Wilson speaks highly of "Christianity" in an abstract sense. However, it doesn't sound like "the orthodox" understanding of Christianity. Rather Wilson speaks nothing of "Grace," but substitutes "Nature" for it. Christianity becomes a generic moralizing creed whose purpose is to support the findings of "reason" and the "moral sense." After having something positive to say about Christianity, Wilson collapses it into the natural law/what's discovered by "reason" and the "senses."

It could be that Wilson was privately orthodox, that orthodox notions of "grace" really have nothing to do with public law anyway; so why should he discuss it. However I still don't think an orthodox Christian who believed the Bible the infallible Word of God would write something like the following:

III. Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance. They are useful and excellent monitors; but, at some times, their admonitions are not sufficiently clear; at other times, they are not sufficiently powerful; at all times, their influence is not sufficiently extensive. Great and sublime truths, indeed, would appear to a few; but the world, at large, would be dark and ignorant. The mass of mankind would resemble a chaos, in which a few sparks, that would diffuse a glimmering light, would serve only to show, in a more striking manner, the thick darkness with which they are surrounded. Their weakness is strengthened, their darkness is illuminated, their influence is enlarged by that heaven-descended science, which has brought life and immortality to light. In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.

On some important subjects, those in particular, which relate to the Deity, to Providence, and to a future state, our natural knowledge is greatly improved, refined, and exalted by that which is revealed.

Got that? The purpose of revelation is to "improve[],refine[], and exalt[]," what man already knows from "reason" and "conscience" (or as he put it elsewhere, the "moral sense").

Even though Wilson doesn't mention the Trinity, what he wrote does implicitly relate to unitarianism is one important sense. People who made claims like Wilson's (that "reason" is the first revelation of God to man; scripture (or parts thereof), the second revelation supports and clarifies what man discovers first from reason) also said it was CLEAR that reason teaches 1+1+1=3 not 1 and therefore, this was one of those CLEAR discoveries of "reason" that the Bible couldn't supersede.

As Wilson put it:

These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense.

Or as John Adams put it, reacting to John Disney’s thoughts:

D[isney]: The union of all Christians is anticipated, as it has been demonstrated to be the doctrine of Christ, his apostles and evangelists, as also of Moses and the prophets. Nor is it less the language of the religion of nature than of revelation . . .

A[dams]: The human understanding is the first revelation from its maker. From God; from Heaven. Can prophecies, can miracles repeal, annul or contradict that original revelation? Can God himself prove that three are one and one three? The supposition is destructive of the foundation of all human knowledge, and of all distinction between truth and falsehood. [Click the link for the primary source.]

In other words, while reason and revelation are both necessary, when nature/reason -- God's first revelation to man -- CLEARLY answers a question, you have to go with it, regardless of what you might think the Bible teaches. And on the Trinity, the answer was clear: It is, according to Adams and those who, like Wilson, followed this rationalistic method, a false doctrine.

This is why I would bet if James Wilson's private letters discussing the Trinity were found, he would deny the Trinity.

I'll keep looking for those letters.

My Letter To WND on Pat Boone's Latest Article

I'll reproduce the relevant part. You can read Boone's article here.

Regarding the Founding Fathers, Boone is as ignorant as the secular leftist with whom he corresponds. He doesn't realize he partakes in his own "Christian Nation" errors just as his correspondent engages in "secular left" errors.

First, Boone claims that Jefferson "averred that he consulted no other source for his Declaration...." Boone refers either to "specific Christian churches" or Blackstone; I can't tell based on the way Boone wrote the passage. But, it doesn't matter, because Jefferson sourced NEITHER for the ideas of the DOI. Rather, in a letter to Richard Henry Lee, May 8, 1825, Jefferson lists "Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. ..." Not the Bible, not the Christian churches and not Blackstone.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=3

Further Blackstone's influence on the Founding was qualified. The FFs had a love/hate relationship with him and for good reason. He was authoritative on common law issues; but on the overarching issues, he was an English Tory who believed in absolute parliamentary supremacy and thought the American Revolution violated such. In other words, 1776 was precisely an anti-Blackstonian movement. No wonder the FFs could hate him as they loved him.

Re whether the FFs were "Christians" or "Deists," this creates a false dichotomy. Yes, all of the notable FFs, including the supposed "Deists" like Jefferson, Franklin and Wilson were in some way affiliated with Christian Churches. In other words they were "Christian" by association or club membership. And they tended to identify as "Christians" as well (as Jefferson did). However these "Christian" men are also on record, in their private letters, denying virtually every single tenet of orthodoxy that defines "Christianity" to a Pat Boone or a Joe Farah. I'm speaking of original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation, infallibility of the Bible and so on.

Perhaps Pat Boone can answer whether one can be a "Christian" and deny these things. And lest you think it was just Jefferson and Franklin who believed this way, I'll close with good old conservative "Christian" John Adams, mocking Christ's Incarnation and Deity.

"An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”

-- John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816

Regards,

Jon Rowe
Yardley, PA

Now, let me anticipate some criticism. First, instead of "Jefferson and Franklin," as the Deists or "not Christians" I have Jefferson, Franklin and J. Adams. Not exactly. I have smoking gun quotations from those three. However, it's not at all clear that Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton before his deathbed were "Christians" in the way that Pat Boone understands the term or disbelieved in the fundamentals as put forth by Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin (i.e., there is an active personal God, Jesus was something special, but not the 2nd Person in the Trinity, that men are justified through works not grace).

Second, the fact that I am discussing an article written by Pat Boone at all. A bit strawmanish? Yes, I admit it is. However, he and I both share an interest in this subject matter. WND is widely read. Boone (like Chuck Norris) is a semi-celebrity.

And as a long time fan of rock and roll, I have a score to settle with a man who nearly ruined the genre before the Beatles emerged to save it.

That dude has no musical soul whatsoever. There is a video of him singing Tutti Fruitti somewhere where he snaps his fingers on the one and three (we were shown it in our "History Of Rock" class at Berklee College of Music). I'll try to find it.

The Founding Nobel

Ok, all the talk on the "blogosphere" is centered on President Obama's big Nobel Peace Prize. And yes, this has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with our blog.

But I thought this might be kind of a fun, mindless question to pose to you all: If the Nobel Prize existed in the 17th and 18th centuries, who would you nominate and why? Perhaps we need a few parameters as preface: you can only select one founding father, one pastor, one British citizen, one person from continental Europe and one "wild card."

Have at it!

Dan Brown and Freemasonry on NBC

I bring this to the group's attention only because of the quotation that closes this announcement:

FRIDAY, OCT. 16: SECRETS OF 'THE LOST SYMBOL'

One of the world's most popular authors, Dan Brown, sits down for a rare and exclusive interview with NBC News' Matt Lauer to talk about his new book, "The Lost Symbol," the beliefs of the Freemasons, the power of the human mind, whether people can become gods and a little known science that may tie them all together. For the hour-long report, "Secrets of the Lost Symbol," set to air on Friday, Oct. 16 (9:00 p.m. ET), Lauer travels to Washington, D.C. to interview Brown and explore the backdrop and secrets of this new bestseller.

"Secrets of the Lost Symbol" will take viewers behind the scenes of the secretive brotherhood of the Freemasons in attempt to make sense of what is fact and what is fiction for all Brown's fans, and find out from the Freemasons themselves what he got right, and what he got wrong. The broadcast also goes in search of what Brown calls the true meaning of his book and why, he says, its so unlike his others. Additionally, he speaks with Lauer at length about the beliefs of the nation's founding fathers, saying "America wasn't founded a Christian country. It became a Christian country."

Dan Brown had been invited to address the membership of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, meeting in Washington, but could not attend as he is traveling to promote the new novel. He sent his regrets, from which I quote:

“In the past few weeks, as you might imagine, I have been repeatedly asked what attracted me to the Masons so strongly as to make it a central point of my new book. My reply is always the same: In a world where men do battle over whose definition of God is most accurate, I cannot adequately express the deep respect and admiration I feel toward an organization in which men of differing faiths are able to ‘break bread together’ in a bond of brotherhood, friendship, and camaraderie.”

Federalist 8 - Hamilton

Regular Guy Paul helpfully pointed out that I had somehow skipped over Federalist 8. So excuse me for a moment as we backtrack and take a quick look at this number.

Once again the theme here is the inevitable warring that would occur between the states if the Constitution was not ratified. Hamilton's contention is that not only would war break out, but the warfare would be worse than on the European continent, and would leave the weaker and smaller states at the mercy of the larger.

War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.

Warfare had drastically changed in Europe due to the development of strong armies and fortified garrisons that prevented easy conquest. It could be argued these developments made things worse because it lengthened wars and made swift resolutions all but impossible. But I'm not a military historian, so I couldn't say if 18th century European warfare was bloodier in fact than warfare throughout the Middle Ages. At any rate, Hamilton believes that the American case would be quite different.

In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. Plunder and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.

This situation in which states are constantly on guard against external threats would then inevitably lead to a loss of civil liberties.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

In a perverse way then, this state of affairs would lead to what many of the Anti-Federalists most feared: the rise of standing armies.

The institutions chiefly alluded to are standing armies and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.

This is a neat trick by which Hamilton turns the common arguments put forth by opponents to the Constitution on their head. The Anti-Federalists worried that the national government created by the document leading to monarchy and standing armies, but Hamilton retorts that the very lack of a central authority vested in the Constitution will lead to those very evils.

Hamilton anticipates some of the arguments that could be used against him, and proceeds to answer them.

It may, perhaps, be asked, by way of objection to this, why did not standing armies spring up out of the contentions which so often distracted the ancient republics of Greece? Different answers, equally satisfactory, may be given to this question. The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain, and devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics. The means of revenue, which have been so greatly multiplied by the increase of gold and silver and of the arts of industry, and the science of finance, which is the offspring of modern times, concurring with the habits of nations, have produced an entire revolution in the system of war, and have rendered disciplined armies, distinct from the body of the citizens, the inseparable companions of frequent hostility.

There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.

In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil.

Finally, if we want to avoid all these evils, then we must turn to UNION.

If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe —our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.

This concludes the series of papers that have argued why the Constitution created in Philadelphia will better ensure peace and stability than the fragmented confederacies that would emerge absent ratification. Throughout this series of papers Publius addressed the fears that many of his opponents held and attempted to demonstrate that those fears would be realized only if the Constitution failed. Failure to ratify would lead to despotism because the lack of a centralized authority would inevitably lead to constant warfare and the loss of civil liberties.

Hamilton might be guilty of slight demagoguery and exaggeration here, but there is no doubt that he earnestly believed that all that he outlined above would indeed come to pass if the Constitution was not ratified. This shows why Hamilton so vehemently supported a document he acknowledged (in other quarters) was severely flawed. Despite his displeasure with much of what was agreed upon in Philadelphia, he believed that the country would be much worse off under the status quo. Only an energetic government granted certain enumerated and limited powers would be able to respond to the tumult that would arise. His primary concern was stability and order, and the Constitution - again, despite the flaws - provided that.

Okay, now we can turn to Madison.

Federalist 9 - Hamilton

I appreciate the invitation to participate on this great blog. For those who do not know me, I have been blogging at the Cranky Conservative and Southern Appeal. I have a doctorate in Politics from the Catholic University of America, and my dissertation focused on the American founding - in particular the tension between Jefferson's philopshy - which I believe is akin to the that of Rousseau - and the rest of the (more Burkean) Framers.

Anyway, that's just a bit of background on who I am. In recent weeks I've been analyzing each of the Federalist Papers. Here is a link to the posts that I have done thus far. Henceforth I'll be cross-posting the remainder of the series, and of course adding other posts where I can on the subject that is near and dear to my heart.

Without further ado, here is my take on Federalist 9.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In the ninth paper, Alexander Hamilton continues the theme that has been running through much of the early series of papers. Once again, Publius* seeks to celebrate the benefits of a single Union over separate confederacies. In this particular case, Hamilton anticipates the subject matter of Madison's celebrated tenth paper.

Before getting started on the subject matter, I'd like to point out Hamilton's rhetorical brilliance. It is simply one of the most masterfully written essays ever compiled. Hamilton lays it on a little thick at times, but it's well worth the ride.

At any rate, Hamilton gets right to the heart of his thesis in the opening paragraph.

A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.

Again, this just beautifully written. Hamilton was a master wordsmith, and that shines through right at the outset. As for the argument itself, it is a theme that Madison will elaborate on in the next paper. Publius is going to advance the notion that an extended republic will in and of itself guard against the dangers of faction. In so doing, he sets traditional political theory on its head, as we'll see in just a moment.

Hamilton acknowledges that the enemies of republican government can be carried to extremes by the example set forth by the ancients.

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

Hamilton fears that anti-republicans will seize upon the disturbances that arise in confederate governments in order to completely stifle liberty. But these enemies of liberty go too far. That being said, they do have a point.

But it is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible.

Taken at face value, the imperfections of republican government can be used as an argument against the very concept of republicanism. And it is at this point where Hamilton takes a somewhat radical turn.

The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the enlargement of the orbit within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single State or to the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy. The latter is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration. It will, however, be of use to examine the principle in its application to a single State, which shall be attended to in another place.

Those who posit that the Framers were significantly influenced by Enlightenment theory can turn to this passage to buttress their cause. Hamilton speaks of a "new science of politics" that has significantly changed the way we view politics. While it is true that the petty republics of Greece and Rome fell prey to domestic faction, in the intervening years modern theorists have devised concepts that can correct the flaws of these early governments. Hamilton is perhaps guilty of slight exaggeration in suggesting that ancient theorists had no notion of the concepts he outlines - Aristotle in particular at least touches upon (though not explicitly) the idea of checks and balances and the separation of powers. But his overall point is that modern theorists have formulated ways in which republican governments can survive the tumults that have torn them asunder in the past. Like scientists in a laboratory perfecting a chemical compound, these theorists have tinkered with political theory in an effort to perfect the science of politics.

The major new advancement is the concept - as Publius puts it - of an enlarged orbit. Again, Madison will expand upon this in the next paper, but Hamilton here lays the groundwork. Traditional political theory held that a republican government only suited a small territory and was ill-suited for anything much larger than a city-state. Publius is going to explode that idea and instead advocate that only an extended territory such as a nation-state can truly maintain republican forms of government. Hamilton will then turn to a theorist that advocates of small republics had cited in efforts to refute the argument he is laying down here.

The opponents of the plan proposed have, with great assiduity, cited and circulated the observations of Montesquieu on the necessity of a contracted territory for a republican government. But they seem not to have been apprised of the sentiments of that great man expressed in another part of his work, nor to have adverted to the consequences of the principle to which they subscribe with such ready acquiescence.

When Montesquieu recommends a small extent for republics, the standards he had in view were of dimensions far short of the limits of almost every one of these States. Neither Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, nor Georgia can by any means be compared with the models from which he reasoned and to which the terms of his description apply. If we therefore take his ideas on this point as the criterion of truth, we shall be driven to the alternative either of taking refuge at once in the arms of monarchy, or of splitting ourselves into an infinity of little, jealous, clashing, tumultuous commonwealths, the wretched nurseries of unceasing discord, and the miserable objects of universal pity or contempt. Some of the writers who have come forward on the other side of the question seem to have been aware of the dilemma; and have even been bold enough to hint at the division of the larger States as a desirable thing. Such an infatuated policy, such a desperate expedient, might, by the multiplication of petty offices, answer the views of men who possess not qualifications to extend their influence beyond the narrow circles of personal intrigue, but it could never promote the greatness or happiness of the people of America.

If people are going to take Montesquieu literally, then they'd have to abandon state republics as well as nation-wide republics. And if we do take this literal approach then we're going to wind up, as Hamilton eloquently puts it, "splitting ourselves into an infinity of little, jealous, clashing, tumultuous commonwealths, the wretched nurseries of unceasing discord, and the miserable objects of universal pity or contempt."

Hamilton believes that Montesquieu's theory can be used to justify extending the sphere of republican governments. Hamilton then quotes Montesquieu at some great length to suggest that he was a champion of confederate republics who believed that they could serve to quell domestic faction. Then, in an effort to derail any potential counter-thrusts to his arguments, Hamilton writes:

A distinction, more subtle than accurate, has been raised between a confederacy and a consolidation of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be, the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are, in the main, arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened, that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction taken notice of, supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. And it will be clearly shown in the course of this investigation that as far as the principle contended for has prevailed, it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.

It's interesting to observe that in some ways Hamilton is almost trying to say that this radically new theory of government is in fact not all that radically new. People are making too much of a distinction that is not really all there. It's a fascinating thrust, and another example of Hamilton's rhetorical brilliance.

Hamilton then concludes the piece with an assurance for those who are concerned that states will lose their sovereign authority.

The definition of a confederate republic seems simply to be an assemblage of societies, or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

Historians might argue about whether Hamilton was just whispering sweet words to appease proponents of states' rights. I for one don't think so. And at a minimum he is expressing the genuinely held opinion of the great majority of his contemporaries. The Constitution was not intended to abrogate state authority. The federal government was designed to promote stability and security, not to completely replace the authority of state governments.

Next time we will discuss one of the most influential essays ever written.

*: It occurs to me that I should explain here why I might use the pen name adopted by the collective of Hamilton, Madison and Jay on occasion, while at other times I refer to them by their real name. When referring to topics covered by more than one writer, or even by the same writer over several papers, I will refer to Publius. But when concentrating on the subject matter of a single paper, I will refer to the individual writer.

The Deist Minimum

by Avery Cardinal Dulles

[Per recent discussions, it seems timely that we reprise this excerpt from the late Avery Cardinal Dulles, with special attention to the final paragraph.---TVD]

From First Things, January 2005:


In his public pronouncements as a statesman and legislator, Jefferson expressed what he considered to belong to the common and public core of religion. He kept his more personal opinions to himself, refraining from putting them in any writing that might find its way into print, but he occasionally penned confidential memoranda for himself and a few friends.

Jefferson’s public religion appears in the Declaration of Independence, which refers to “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” to “inalienable” rights conferred upon all human beings by their Creator, and to “the protection of divine Providence.” In his first inaugural address, in 1801, Jefferson spoke of how the American people were “enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and love of man, acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence.” In his second inaugural, four years later, he emphasized the nation’s need for the favor and enlightenment of Providence and asked his hearers to unite with him in supplication to “that Being in whose hands we are.”

One of Jefferson’s firmest principles, as we know, was that of religious freedom. In 1777, as a legislator, he composed what later became the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which embodies his personal conviction that the government should exercise no coercion in religious matters. In his famous letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association he referred to the “wall of separation between Church and State”—a term that had previously been used by the Baptist Roger Williams. But as we have seen, he did not hesitate to bring religion into his public pronouncements. As President he frequently attended religious services in Congress. While opposing a federal religious establishment, “he personally encouraged and symbolically supported religion by attending public church services in the Capitol,” as Daniel Driesbach has written.

Like his contemporaries Franklin, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Madison, Jefferson was convinced that the republic could not stand without a high level of public morality, and that moral behavior could not survive in the absence of divine authority as its sanction. Obedience to the teachings of Jesus and reflection on the purity of Jesus’ life could enable people to overcome their selfishness and parochialism.

Jefferson’s friend Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) maintained that the authentic teachings of Jesus were vastly superior to those of Socrates or any other pagan but that they had been overlaid by a thick cover of legend and mythology, which must be stripped away for the truth to shine forth in its pristine brilliance. Priestley’s work made a deep impression on Jefferson and enabled him to regard himself as a Christian. Following in Priestley’s footsteps, Jefferson undertook to retrieve the true teachings of Jesus, especially in matters of morals. To this end he made two compilations of texts concerning Jesus from the New Testament. The first, entitled The Philosophy of Jesus, was completed in 1804 but has been lost. The second, which he called The Life and Morals of Jesus, is usually known as the Jefferson Bible. It was composed in his later years and published only after his death. Omitting all references to the miraculous and the supernatural, Jefferson selected what he took to be authentic sayings of Jesus as a moral teacher. The precepts of the Nazarene, he asserted, were “the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man.” The religion of Jesus, he believed, was so simple that it could be understood by a child, but the writers of the New Testament, especially Paul, overlaid it with mythology derived from Platonist sources. The sage of Monticello forthrightly dismissed dogmas such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, which he found unintelligible.

Jefferson’s religion, however, was not purely philosophical. For a living religion, he knew, scope must be given to the inclinations of the heart. He was enraptured by the beauty of the Psalms, which in his opinion surpassed all the hymnists of every language and of every time, including the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter so much admired by his friend John Adams. When he attended church services as an old man, the sounds of familiar hymns would bring tears to his eyes.

In his plan of studies for the University of Virginia Jefferson wanted natural religion to be taught to the exclusion of all doctrine attributed to revelation. But he knew that religion could not be purely academic and therefore recognized the importance of worship in the churches. He took pride in the fact that students at his university had opportunities to worship in Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist services in the sanctuary at Charlottesville. Interdenominational competition, he believed, was the best protection against fanaticism. In matters of religion the aphorism “united we stand, divided we fall” had to be reversed. Divided we stand, he said, but united we fall.

In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death, but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God.

Jefferson’s religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. [...]

In the closing decades of the eighteenth century, deism in the United States, as elsewhere, seemed to be sweeping everything before it. But early in the nineteenth century, the deist tide began to recede. The first half of the nineteenth century witnessed a significant revival of Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic. The preachers of the second Great Awakening were especially successful in rural America, where they aroused a highly emotional biblically based religion. While Unitarianism survived and even experienced some growth in New England, it lost its specifically deist features: the sharp dichotomy between faith and reason, the deductivist natural theology, the separation between God and the world, and the idea of Jesus as teacher of the natural law. Deism therefore may be said to have perished, not only in the United States but also in England, France, and Germany.

We can discern several reasons why deism, which once looked so promising, proved unable to sustain itself. Deism drew its vitality from the oppressive policies of the religious establishments against which it was reacting. In the minds of the Enlightenment thinkers, confessional religion, unless checked by law or by free competition, led inevitably to tyranny and persecution. But this assumption was based on a time-conditioned union or alliance between throne and altar, not on the gospel of Christ, which gave Caesar no authority over the things of God.

Jefferson himself came gradually to this realization. As a young adult he seems to have held that Christian faith was favorable to despotism and hostile to free society. But his friend Benjamin Rush convinced him that Christianity and republicanism were, so to speak, made for each other. As Eugene Sheridan has written, Rush regarded Christianity as “part of a divine plan to bring about the kingdom of God on earth by freeing mankind from the burden of royal and ecclesiastical oppression through the spread of the principles of human equality and Christian charity.” With Rush’s help Jefferson found a way of accepting Christianity without diminishing his commitment to the freedom of conscience. Deism, therefore, was not necessary to offset religious oppression.

By the middle of the twentieth century the major branches of Christianity accepted the principle of religious freedom not as a reluctant concession but as a requirement of the gospel itself. The Catholic Church in its “Declaration on Religious Freedom” (Dignitatis Humanae) teaches that the gospel itself demands that “in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded.” A major factor in the rise of deism has therefore ceased to exist.

Although deism portrayed itself as a pure product of unaided reason, it was not what it claimed to be. Its basic tenets concerning God, the virtuous life, and rewards beyond the grave were in fact derived from Christianity, the faith in which the deists themselves had been reared. It is doubtful whether anyone who had not been brought up in a biblical religion could embrace the tenets of deism. The children of deists rarely persevered in the faith of their parents.


[HT: "Their Minimalism is Our Fanaticism" from The Brothers Judd blog. The opinions above are of the late Cardinal Dulles [bio here], but are cordial enough to my own for me to post them.---TVD]

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry did indeed say this (there is an "unconfirmed quotation" of Henry's that begins with "it cannot be emphasized..." that Henry did NOT say).

Henry was (most scholars agree) an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, indeed one who believed in a pretty close connection between Church & State (Jefferson and Madison fought against HIS assessment bill to fund teachers of the Christian religion in VA).

However, the Bible really doesn’t stand for the proposition of “give me political liberty or give me death,” but rather “give me spiritual liberty or give me death.” Political liberty is alien to the Bible. The “liberty” to which the Bible speaks is freedom in Christ (or from the bondage of sin). St. Paul was clear that one could be a chattel slave qua chattel save and “free” in this sense.

The line “give me liberty or give me death” was lifted from Joseph Addison’s play Cato, about a noble pagan figure from antiquity who committed suicide rather than submit to the tyranny of Caesar.

Where I am going with this? Christian Nationalists often claim that the overwhelming majority of FFs were “Christians” and even the “non-Christians” like Franklin and Jefferson were influenced by a “Christian worldview.” And no doubt, there is a kernel of truth there. Many of the FFs were orthodox Christians and Franklin and Jefferson were indeed influenced by Christianity.

However the converse is true as well: Many of the “orthodox Christians” like Patrick Henry were influenced by an Enlightenment and noble pagan-Greco-Roman worldview.

You can read more about the background of the play Cato here and also learn more about how the play influenced other FFs.

The United States of Zod

THE NEW CONSTITUTION

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law. It is General Zod who gives orders.

2nd Amendment
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, no longer has a purpose.

3rd Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, who shall decide "yes, in the name of General Zod."

4rd Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. If my administration has a need to search your belongings, it is reasonable, is it not?

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, except to General Zod.

6rd Amendment
The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial in a proper kangaroo court.

7th Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy is significant, the property shall be bequeathed to the state in tribute to General Zod.

8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted, unless by the new government.

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage those that serve General Zod.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution rest with General Zod.


HT: Zod

Zig Ziglar Talks About the Founding Fathers

World-renowned author and motivational speaker Zig Ziglar weighs in on the Founding Fathers. Ziglar explains that the Founders believed in God and "God's possibles." But, he claims that today "we've kicked God out of just about every place."



While it's true that Ziglar is no professional historian, his opinions reflect those held by millions of Americans. Given Ziglar's wide name recognition and the extended remarks he makes about the Founders and their religious views, I thought it appropriate to post it here for your review and comment.

Freemasonry Controversy

I've blogged about it numerous times (see for instance here). It's true that during the Founding era and perhaps even today vast numbers of Freemasons also happened to be orthodox Trinitarian Christians. Yet it required and requires only simple belief in God. Freemasonry exemplified the zeitgeist of America's Founding "public" theology. And that was monotheism based on natural religion. As one very orthodox figure from the Founding era, Rev. Samuel Miller, noted about Freemasony:

Masonry, as such, and according to its original plan, appears to be founded on natural religion. Hence the institution is found among all nations, who believe in one God, and the accountableness of man to him, as a moral Agent, and an immortal being.

-– quoted from Peter Lillback's "George Washington’s Sacred Fire," p. 505.

However, that said, it doesn't necessarily mean all is well between Freemasonry on the one hand and orthodox Christianity on the other. As one orthodox source notes:

Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity because it promotes indifferentism. Indifferentism is the heretical belief that all religions are equally legitimate attempts to explain the truth about God which, but for the truth of His existence, are unexplainable. Such a view makes all truths relative and holds that God can be equally pleased with truth and error. Because Christians believe that God has definitively revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and desires that all men come to the knowledge of this truth, indifferentism is incompatible with Christian faith. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6).

Freemasonry's teachings and practices also result in syncretism which is the blending of different religious beliefs into a unified whole. This is evidenced most especially by Masonry's religious rituals which gather men of all faiths around a common altar, and place all religious writings along side the Bible on the Masonic altar. This is also demonstrated by the Lodge's prayers and its unique names and symbols for God and heaven. Syncretism is the logical consequence of indifferentism.

The Lodge's practice of requiring its members to swear immoral oaths is also incompatible with Christianity. These oaths require a Christian to swear on the Holy Bible that he will uphold a code of moral conduct that prefers Masons over non-Masons, and to preserve secret passwords and handshakes. Such oaths are gravely immoral because their subject matter is trivial or does not give rise to the necessity of an oath. These oaths are also sworn under symbolic, blood-curdling penalties of physical torture and death called self-curses (e.g., having my throat cut across, and my tongue torn out by its roots). These penalties show a lack of respect for God and amount to blasphemy which is a serious sin.

Frat Files

Should I be flattered? Do you think this qualifies as "fair use" under copyright law? Could I sue for $$? Perhaps there's something wrong with me, but this makes me laugh.

The original post got links from Andrew Sullivan, PZ Myers and others. Perhaps that's why it made it to "frat files."

Notre Dame Forum: The Meaning of Religious Freedom in America

In early February of this year the University of Notre Dame hosted a two-day seminar devoted to the topic of religious freedom in America, with a particular focus on three key questions:

1.) What is freedom of religion?
2.) What is freedom from religion?
3.) What is freedom for religion?

The seminar featured the likes of Notre Dame's very own "heavy hitter" Mark Noll, along with a number of additional scholars from various fields. This is an excellent and insightful video that is certainly worthy of your time. The first speaker is pretty dry (unless you like statistics and political science). He ends at 18:45. But for the most part, this is a solid discussion forum.

Epitome of Worthlessness

Hi and thanks for your spirited critiques.


Thomas Paine was deeply involved with Illuminism--a branch of masonry--during his stay in France. This information is available in any standard biography. Was Hamilton a mason? I'll do some more research. In some cases, it's actually difficult to know for certain, since this was a quasi-secret society.

As to the Trinity, a marked change took place with the Masonic Constitution that Desaguliers authored. While the manuals of the older masonic craft guilds all made some reference to the Trinity, Desagulier's Constitution was silent on this point and never mentioned Christ. This does not imply that masons from that point forward were all non-Trinitarian, but that belief in a Trinity ceased to be a requirement for participation in the brotherhood. In its paragraph on "God and Religion," the Constitution enjoined newly minted masons to overcome theological differences to join in common moral endeavour: "But though in ancient times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country of nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves, that is to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denomination or Persuasion they may be distinguished." The emphasis was on moral conduct and character rather than theological correctness. Since Desaguliers wrote this passage, I feel confident it reflects his own spiritual orientation.


My sources on freemasonry include Bernard Fay's "Revolution and Freemasonry 1680-1800" (Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1935), and Margaret Jacob, "The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons and Republicans" (George Allen & Unwin, London, 1981.

I stand by the overall accuracy of my description of freemasonry, its principles and adherents.

Apology for "Revolutionary Spirits'" Last Post

You'll find a post from the pseudonym "Revolutionary Spirits" below this one, called "Freemasons: Fact & Fiction."

Unfortunately for this blog, that post itself is full of fictions, including



---misidentifying certain Founders [Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton] as Masons

---and asserting that Masonry was some new, non-Trinitarian religion [although orthodox Christians such as Roger Sherman and John Hancock were Masons]

---and making unverifiable claims about John Desaguliers' theology---unverifiable on the internet via Google, or by Magpie Mason, a contributor to this blog who's well-acquainted with Freemasonry, or by a Mason history website.


Rev. Gary Kowalski's [Revolutionary Spirits] post was the epitome of worthlessness, if not near-complete fabrication.

I personally apologize for his historical and analytical sloppiness. He is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to make up his own facts. But he went to Harvard, you might say, and he even wrote a book that was well-reviewed by USA Today.


Heh. Beware "authorities."


We frequently disagree on this blog about our analyses and interpretations, but we never disagree about the underlying facts. That's what's been the heart and soul of American Creation, that we speak the common language of honesty and fact.

I've always been proud of being a contributor to American Creation and its unblemished record for historical accuracy and painstaking research of religion and the Founding.

Until now.


This blog is first and foremost committed to presenting facts you can trust, hitting the books and the original Founding documents so our readers can analyze the facts for themselves and come up with their own opinions. Gary Kowalski has wronged that trust for his own reasons. Whatever those reasons may be, it's irrelevant. He does not respond to well-written comments and sincere questions about what he's written.



Dude's making stuff up to suit his own agenda. Sorry.