A Brief Commentary on the Founders and Religious "Labeling"

For those that regularly follow this blog, I am sure you are more than aware of the fact that the greatest source of debate and controversy we see invariably has to do with the specific religious beliefs of our mainstream founding fathers. What typically happens is that someone will write up a posting that argues for or against a particular religious label – i.e. “Jefferson was a deist,” “Washington was a Christian,” etc. In response, those opposed to the thesis of the post will present a number of quotations, primary sources and other forms of evidence that he/she feels will successfully “debunk” the posting’s claim.

Though I am not opposed to this style of debating – in fact, I have participated in a plethora of such postings and debates and actually enjoy them quite a bit – I do feel that such a practice of assigning a religious “label” to our founders is counterproductive at best. As bpabbott has argued in a former posting:

"What is the point of debating the founders faith? They should be known for their deeds and their words. We should not attempt to label them with a theological label as if such sheds any light upon the details of their individual personal opinions; religious, political, or otherwise." [1]

While I disagree with abbott’s notion that debating the religion of our founders is somewhat a futile effort, I do agree with him when he states that theological labels do not always shed light “upon the details of their individual personal opinions; religious, political, or otherwise.”

The bottom line is this: the religious beliefs of our founding fathers were, much like they are for people today, very complex. Assigning one specific religious label in the hopes that it will somehow reveal all that is needed to know about a particular founder’s religion is silly. For instance, let’s look at the founder that is perhaps the most controversial of them all when it comes to his religious views: George Washington.

When it comes to “claiming” the legacy of our founders, both Christian Nationalists and secularists have fought tirelessly in proving that George Washington is one of their own. Naturally, this is due to the man’s Herculean status that seems to trump that of the other founders. Or as Washington biographer, Joseph Ellis put it, Washington was “the palpable reality that clothed the revolutionary rhapsodies in flesh and blood, America’s one and only indispensable character…the American Zeus, Moses and Cincinnatus all rolled into one.” [2] For both Christian zealots and hard-core secularists, having America’s premiere founder in your corner is a prestigious trophy to say the least.

But when it comes down to the “nitty-gritty” of proving that Washington was a Deist, U(u)nitarian, Christian, etc., things are not as clear cut as they may seem, even when die-hard activists like David Barton for the right, or Howard Zinn for the left continue to insist that the religion of our founders is a simple and obvious endeavor.

For this particular post, I am not interested in diving into the actual historical records to prove that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. were Christians, Deists, etc. For those arguments I will simply refer you to the numerous postings that have been done on each founder at this blog and the many other blogs/websites that are dedicated to the same goal. Instead, it is my hope that people will at least consider the possibility that there is MUCH more to the religion of our founders than meets the eye. To the Christian Nationalists, I would ask you to take a step back and ask yourselves why you are so adamant on insisting that our founders were devout men of a Christian God. Do the opinions of secularists, who, for the most part, are trying to be as sincere in their scholarship as you are, really have a secretive agenda to destroy all remnants of Christianity in our nation’s history? To the die-hard secularists, do you really think that embracing a religious heritage could constitute a legitimate threat to our nation’s founding principles? Are Christian conservatives really attempting to rewrite history, or are they simply trying to demonstrate the importance of religion in our nation’s founding?

By no means am I trying to be offensive here. For myself, I realize that I too need to take a step back at times so that I can effectively see things as they are. To do otherwise would essentially “label” me as an irresponsible student of history. And in the end, isn’t this what we all want to avoid?

In conclusion, when it comes to “labeling” the religion of our founders make sure that you do so with a grain of salt. As Mark Twain once said, “There is no such thing as a simple person. We are all complex beyond our wildest imaginations.” So it is with the religion of our founding fathers.

Notes:
[1] bpabbott’s comment on, Jefferson still wasn’t a Deist, OK? July 17, 2008. American Creation Blog.
[2] Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (New York: Random House Publishing, 2000), 121

Jews in the Revolution - Irving Levitas

INTRODUCTION - I first met Dr. Irving Levitas, the author of this article, on Saint Patrick's day, probably in the year 1976. A Jewish friend took me to visit the Yonkers Jewish Community Center where I could meet Dr. Levitas. Instantly, from the time he first reviewed the written summary of my research on Jesus and the Acceptable Year of the Lord, Irving and I became good friends. He became my mentor, and helped me find additional references with which I could support my thesis. I also had the pleasure of his addressing me as "my haver" (a Hebrew term for friend, colleague, or study partner). I just received a copy of The Chronicle Papers with some of his articles, and decided to share this one:

The Chronicles Papers - Views of American Life - 1984
A collection of newspaper articles originally carried by The Yonkers Jewish Chronicle (1976-1979) by Dr. Irving Levitas, 1910 - 1987.

The Jews in the Revolution - A few years ago, we celebrated the bicentennial of the American Revolution, and amidst the special events, publications, even Haggadot (one published by Temple Emmanu-El of Yonkers) attention was called to the role of the Jews not only in the early history of this country, but also in the Revolution itself. In a certain sense, the participation of the Jews in that Revolution of 1776-1783 was an indication of the new role of the Jews in the history of a democratic nation-to-be. For the Revolution was not only a colonial conflict, with colonies rebelling against the British, but it was also in part a civil war within the thirteen colonies itself, with "Whigs" (those fighting for American Independence) vs. "Tories" (those remaining loyal in great Britain). And there were Jews on both sides of the War. [see This Land of Liberty: A History of America's Jews by Helene Schwartz; George Washington's Jewish Soldiers by Joseph L. Andrews]

THUS IT CAN be immediately apparent that the Revolution was to have great consequences for future Jewish history, not only in the United States-to-be, but throughout the world of 1789. Where, hitherto, Jews had been more the "objects of" political and social changes, now they were participants in such changes. Through membership in such organizations as the Freemasons, Jews found themselves for the first time in centuries as colleagues with non-Jews in fighting for the same cause; such an affiliation (which occurred even before the Revolution) was to play a great part in the "Americanization" of the Jews.

The immediate effects of the Declaration of Independence were both destructive and constructive. They were destructive in that, as merchants and traders whose economic life depended upon European trade, the British blockade of shipping (and the British had the better navy at this time) was to destroy such trade and, with it, the economic stability of the general (and Jewish) merchants. It was to disrupt the communication with the "mother synagogue" in London, Bevis Marks, and thus throw the American Jewish communities on their own. This was to throw Ashkenazim and Sephardim into closer relations even retaining the Sephardic rituals with an Ashkanasic majority in most synagogues. Living as they did on the Atlantic seaboard, from Newport to Savannah, the Jews felt invariably that more than economic survival was at stake.

Thus, out of the 375 signers of the Non-Importation Agreement of 1765, ten were Jews (including the Gratz brothers, Mordecais and Levys). David Franks was also a signer of this move to oppose the Stamp Act, but illustrative of the later division, Franks was to oppose the revolution and became a Loyalist (Tory), faithful to Great Britain. Gersham Seixas, the minister of Shearit Israel of New York (he was not an ordained rabbi; American Jewry had to wait until the early 1800s for a rabbi), fled to Stratford, Conn., at the outbreak of the Revolution, and the occupation of New York by the British, and later, as we mentioned, went to Philadelphia, not to return to New York until the end of the war, for he was a Whig, a "revolutionary." There, in Philadelphia [at Congregation Mikveh Israel, he had joined with Hayim Solomon ["financier of the American Revolution"], Isaac Moses and Jonas Phillips in opposing the British. Sixteen patriarchs of Jewish families in New York signed an address of loyalty to Great Britain, including Moses and Abraham Gomez, but their grandson, Daniel Gomez was a Whig, and left for Philadelphia, where he served in the American forces.

In Newport, there was a list drawn up of those opposed to the Revolution, and there were four Jews on this list, including the hazzan of the synagogue, Isaac Touro. Even Ezra Stiles, whose interest in Jewish literature and language was profound as the Reverend of the Christian Church in Newport, was to write in his diary that Jews he knew were informing the British of American activities. One such Jew was Myer Pollock, another Isaac Hart; but here again, Michael Hays, one of four Jews who refused to sign oaths of loyalty to Great Britain in 1776, went to Boston to live with other revolutionaries. He was joined in Boston by his sister (Touro's widow) with her two sons, Abraham and Judah, the last named becoming an adherent of American independence after 1783, and moving to New Orleans, allied with Andrew Jackson's forces in fighting the British in 1815.

WE HAVE MENTIONED Daniel Gomez as a soldier in the American Revolutionary forces, but there were others too. There is Francis Salvador (whose synagogue name was Daniel Jeshuruh Rodrigues) who, despite a large plantation ownership, opted for the American forces, serving in the First and Second Provincial Congress of South Carolina (a Revolutionary group), and was to become the first Jew to be killed in the War in the South. Another Jew, Solomon Bush, was to rise to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the American army (his father was one who signed the Non-Importation Agreement in 1765), and Solomon was to become the first Jewish pensioner. And there was David Franks, who split with his Loyalist father and became a major in the American Army, serving as aide to General Arnold. When Arnold was tried for treason, he specifically declared that his Major David Franks, knew nothing of his plans. Franks was to later become a diplomat in the service of the new-born country, a great friend of Thomas Jefferson, and with Solomon Bush, was to be the second of the first two Jews to seek public benefits as a veteran. Then there was Benjamin Nones, of Charleston, who had come from France to the colony, and was to rise to the rank of major in the Pennsylvania militia, after moving to Philadelphia to escape British Control. And finally, among many more, there was Mordecai Sheftall of Georgia, scion of a great Jewish family of that colony, becoming a colonel in charge of the commissary of Georgia and South Carolina. He was taken prisoner with his father in 1776 and only after the war was permitted to return to the United States.

Meanwhile, the Jewish Loyalists, those who remained "loyal" to Great Britain, had either fled to Canada (where they augmented the Jewish community of Montreal (which had been founded in 1763). We have mentioned Isaac Touro, Moses Hart, Moses Seixas (whose nephew was Gershom, the adherent to the American side), Moses Levy, Barack Hays (who started as a Whig but became a Loyalist), Henry Moses, Alexander Zunz, and the efficient publicist for the loyalist cause, Isaac de Pinto, as well as James Lucena, and the brother of the American military hero, (Mordecai), Levi Sheftall; many of these were to renounce their American sympathies to remain loyal Britons by going to Canada or returning to England. But some Loyalists accepted the American victory, and became citizens of the new republic, to serve in political, diplomatic and commercial offices in the now independent United States, officially declared so in 1783 but de facto so only after 1789.

Thomas Jefferson: Christian Restorationist

Researching the individual religious beliefs of our various founding fathers has become a favorite pastime of mine. Whether it is trying to understand the mystery of George Washington, the complexity of Benjamin Franklin, or the "heretical" views of Thomas Paine, the topic of our founding fathers and their religion has captivated the attention of the public. Yet despite this attraction to the founders and their religion, I am amazed at the fact that so many historians, theologians, and common history buffs still push for a singular religious label when it comes to our founders. For example, we have all heard it said that Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, and that George Washington was a Theist, U(u)nitarian, devout Christian, etc. While these labels carry with them a certain degree of truth, it would be foolish to suggest that they contain all we need to know. After all, Franklin referred to himself as a "thorough deist" and a "devout Christian" at different points in his life. From the evidence available Washington's personal faith contained components of Christianity and deism. Simply put, it would be foolish of us to assume that a singular label -- i.e. Christianity, Deism, etc. -- is sufficient in explaining the religious views of our founding fathers.

With that said, I want to focus on one founder that has fallen victim to this "single religious label" phenomenon that I have mentioned above. We have all heard it said that Thomas Jefferson was clearly a deist. After all, the man rejected the divinity of Jesus, changed the Bible to fit his personal creed, and openly criticized organized religion on a number of occasions. While I cannot refute the validity of these facts, I do not believe that they can be used to conclusively label Jefferson as a Deist and nothing more. As Tom Van Dyke has pointed out in one of his posts on Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson was no "deist." His God was no cosmic watchmaker; he was active in the affairs of men ... I also noted that the Jefferson Bible left in The Lord's Prayer, which is probative, because when your watch breaks, you don't pray to Timex."

Mr. Van Dyke is absolutely right. Jefferson's God was an intervening force that helped to shape the course of mankind. As Mr. Van Dyke effectively points out, Jefferson never subscribed to the idea of an absent god/cosmic clockmaker.

With that said, I am in no way suggesting that deism played NO role in the religious views of Thomas Jefferson. I am simply saying -- and I believe Mr. Van Dyke is as well -- that deism only tells part of the story. When it comes to Jefferson and deism, perhaps Dr. Larry Cebula put it best when he wrote:

"I think you (and many others) make a mistake by applying a dictionary definition of Deism as if it were a set of principles equivalent to a religious test. Surely 18th century Deism was much more loose than that, more a set of inclinations and ideas than a set of fixed principles. It is hard to define precisely but I know it when I see it. If Deism was a big tent, Jefferson was at least a frequent visitor, and often made his home there."

(see comments section at this link).

It is not my intention to engage in a debate over Jefferson's deism. I believe that it is both reasonable and appropriate to embrace what both Tom Van Dyke and Larry Cebula point to. Deism played a role in Jefferson's faith to be sure, but it does not tell the entire story. With that said, I now want to turn to the main point of my post, which I hope will provide an additional interpretation of Jefferson's faith.

In my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's personal religion can be better understood when we recognize a few of the religious constants that he accepted throughout the course of his life:

1.) Jefferson loved Jesus but not Christianity.

2.) Jefferson loved scripture but despised its current interpretation.

3.) Jefferson believed in reason and not faith.

4.) Jefferson embraced the internal benefits of religious devotion but detested the outward demonstrations of Christian zealots.

In summation, I believe that in addition to his Christian and deist leanings, Jefferson was deeply influenced by his belief in Christian RESTORATIONISM, which caused Jefferson to accept what he believed were the true doctrines of Christ and to reject the distorted orthodoxy of his day.

Point #1: Jefferson loved Jesus, but not Christianity:
For Jefferson, the religion of Jesus Christ was simple. As he stated in an 1818 letter to Wells and Lilly of the Classical Press:

"I make you my acknowledgement for the sermon on the Unity of God, and am glad to see our countrymen looking that question in the face. it must end in a return to primitive Christianity" [my emphasis].

Jefferson's desire to return to the roots of "primitive Christianity" were the result of his conviction that the Christian religion had strayed from the true doctrine of Jesus Christ. As Jefferson stated on another occasion:

"The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers...Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages." [my emphasis]. (Thomas Jefferson, The writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7, H.A. Washington, ed., pp210, 257).

Later in his life, in a letter to Francis van der Kemp, Jefferson stated:

"I trust with you that the genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as it was preached and practised by himself. very soon after his death it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye" [my emphasis].

For Jefferson, true Christianity was not to be had in the ceremonial rituals of communion or the Calvinist doctrine of grace. Instead good works and moral behavior were the TRUE doctrine of a Christian:

"My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin's, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power."
(Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Parker, May 15, 1819).

As evidenced above, Jefferson's love for Jesus came not from a pious devotion to orthodoxy, but from a sincere appreciation of his doctrine. Jefferson sincerely believed that Christ's doctrines were to be admired and emulated. With regards to the morals of Jesus, Jefferson stated:

"It is the innocence of his character, the purity and sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquences of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which he conveys them, that I so much admire."

It was in his admiration of the example and doctrine of Jesus, not his devotion to pious orthodoxy, that Jefferson developed a love for Jesus. Perhaps Steven Waldman, author of the book, Founding Faith, points to Jefferson's love of Jesus best when he writes:

"Jefferson was driven to edit the Bible the way a parent whose child has been kidnapped is driven to find the culprit. Jefferson loved Jesus and was attempting to rescue him" (Founding Faith, 73).

Point #2: Jefferson loved scripture but despised its current interpretation:

In my opinion, there can be little doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of scripture. The simple fact that Jefferson spent so many years tediously dissecting the Bible to fit his personal beliefs is evidence of this fact. While there is no doubt that Jefferson's "tinkering" with the Bible has caused Christians to take an antagonistic stance against Jefferson, it is still worth analyzing the motives behind Jefferson's Bible editing.

As Steven Waldman stated in the quotation noted above, Jefferson's intentions behind altering the Bible were based on his belief that Christianity had strayed from the religion of Christ. As Jefferson stated in a letter to Samuel Kercheval in 1810:

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State: that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves: that rational men, not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

And to John Adams in 1813, Jefferson wrote:

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe."

It is clear that the reasons behind Jefferson's desire to "edit" the Bible were motivated out of his distrust for pious Christian leaders and from his sincere belief that Christianity had fallen from its true course.

When it comes to the Jefferson Bible, it is interesting to note just what kind of changes he chose to make. Clearly Jefferson did not intend to write his own version of the Bible, but instead hoped to recover some of the "missing" or "altered" truths that had been lost over time. Again, Jefferson hoped to RESTORE the true nature of Christ's religion as it was once contained in the Bible of old. A good example of Jefferson's passion to "correct" the Bible can be found in his 1823 letter to John Adams, in which he states:

"[A]nd his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st. chapter of John, in these words, `{en arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton Theon kai Theos en o logos. `otos en en arche pros ton Theon. Panta de ayto egeneto, kai choris ayto egeneto ode en, o gegonen}. Which truly translated means `in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made'. Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word {logos}. One of it's legitimate meanings indeed is `a word.' But, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning `reason', equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that `a word,' the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe."

In addition to pointing out where he believed the original translation of the Bible had gone wrong, Jefferson often took the liberty of changing certain parts of the Bible's text in an effort to make it sound more "Christ-like." For example, instead of keeping the biblical verse found in Matthew 5: 48, which states, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," Jefferson removed the verse completely and then added what was a twist of Luke 6: 36 when he wrote "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Clearly Jefferson felt that a number of biblical texts had been changed to pollute of subjugate the minds of mankind.

When it comes to the Jefferson Bible, it is also important to note the fact that all miracles -- i.e. raising Lazarus from the dead, turning water into wine, walking on water, etc. -- were removed from Jefferson's final draft. This helps to clearly illustrate the fact that Jefferson, despite his devotion to the example and doctrine of Christ, never acknowledged him as divine or as the savior of mankind. In fact, Jefferson even stated to his friend, John Adams, that:

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” (Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823).

For all of his praise and devotion to Jesus, Jefferson never publicly recognized him as the son of God.

Point #3: Jefferson believed in reason and not faith:

As one of the quintessential Enlightenment thinkers of early America, it should come as no surprise that Thomas Jefferson favored reason to faith. As mentioned above, Jefferson's removal of all miracles from his draft of the Bible suggests that he put little to no stock in faith-based stories, which he undoubtedly considered to be fables. In addition, Jefferson admonished his family and friends to put their trust in reason, not faith. As he wrote to Peter Carr in 1787:

"Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy & Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god." [My emphasis].

Point #4: Jefferson embraced the internal benefits of religious devotion but detested the outward demonstrations of Christian zealots:

This final point was perhaps the biggest pet-peeve of all for Thomas Jefferson. For a man that fought for religious freedom and equality, Jefferson could also not help but notice how pious expressions of religion had caused the world a great deal of harm. As he states in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

“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 Jefferson, religion best served mankind when it was left to the individual and not the clergy:

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life" (Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 11, 1817).

In Jefferson's mind, this was the only true way to be a Christian. As Jesus himself had admonished to, "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men" (Matthew 6:1). With this in mind, it is understandable why Thomas Jefferson would refer to himself as a "true Christian." As he stated in a letter to Benjamin Rush:

"I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

In conclusion, Thomas Jefferson's religion was anything but simple. Defining him exclusively as a deist or any other label is both counterproductive and incomplete. Clearly Jefferson was influenced to a degree by deism, Christianity, U(u)nitarianism, etc. With that said, it is essential that we recognize the passionate devotion to RESTORATIONISM that literally guided Jefferson's walk through his personal labyrinth of religious devotion. Jefferson's love and admiration for the doctrines of Jesus, along with his appreciation of scripture, devotion to reason, and his appeal to private communion with God, all helped to shape Jefferson's religious perspective. By advocating a return to the original doctrines of Christ, Jefferson's Christian RESTORATIONISM is as important to his overall religious DNA as were deism and Christianity.

Mormons & Founding Documents

I believed that Mormons held the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to be "inspired" in a similar sense that sacred scripture was divinely inspired. Brad and Ray -- American Creation's resident Mormons -- informed me that this isn't quite true. They say Mormons believe the US Founding and its documents were divinely inspired in some sense but not at the same level as sacred scripture. I'd like them or some other learned Mormon to clarify in a post as I think it will make for informative discussion.

Here is a typical source, from our friend John Lofton, discussing [among other things] Mormonism and the Founding:

Q: Well that’s another aspect that I hadn’t asked you about and that is that Mormonism believes or teaches basically that these founding documents of our country are pretty much sacred scripture which of course no real Christian could ever believe, correct?

A: I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking there.

Q: The founding documents, The Declaration of Independence, they pretty much consider them almost sacred scripture whereas no Christian could actually consider the founding documents to be sacred.

A: Well that’s exactly right and that’s a good point. We test all things in light of Scripture and hold fast to that which is good. So the final repository for faith and practice in a Christian world view is the word of God and everything then is tested in light of Scripture and we hold fast to that which is good.

I would also note that Mormonism is a great analogy to the religious beliefs of America's key Founders. As the American View website says: “'Bible Answer Man' Says Mormons Not Christians; Use Our Words But With Different Meanings." The same thing can be said of America's key Founders. They often used "Christian terminology" that masked heterodox sentiments. According to a strict orthodox Trinitarian view that holds Mormons not to be "Christian," even though Mormons call themselves "Christians," America's key Founders -- Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris and a few others -- were not "Christians" even though they at times called themselves "Christians" and presented their heterodox theology under the auspices of "Christianity."

Towards a Broad Reading of America's Declaration

In his latest installment on the American Creation blog, Dr. Kevin Schmiesing of the Acton Institute noted:

I see Jonathan as drawing a boundary too constrictive and impermeable around the Founding ideas. I cannot dispute that Jefferson and other deists (or whatever they all were--that's another ongoing debate in this space) viewed the Declaration of Independence—to use one important, concrete example—through the lens of their particular worldview. But does that mean that the text itself is not open, to some extent, to other interpretations through the lenses of other worldviews? To return to an earlier example, the Catholic signer of the Declaration, Charles Carroll, was not a theologian, but I'm not aware that anyone has questioned in general his Catholic orthodoxy. How could he sign the Declaration if it were simply, case open and shut, an expression of principles rooted in a worldview hostile to or at least inconsistent with a Catholic one? Did he misunderstand it? Was he dishonest? My own view is that he was neither and that he, like me some years later, can in good conscience fully subscribe to the principles articulated by the Declaration, even if he (like me) would want to qualify and clarify its meaning in a way that rendered it consistent with the Catholic tradition. That is not to say that the parameters of meaning are utterly amorphous: there are limits to how the words "inalienable rights" can be legitimately interpreted. Jonathan wants to set those limits relatively more narrowly; I want them to be more expansive.

This is not quite the point I was trying to make. I too agree that the Declaration can be read in an expansive way. But the language is so broad and expansive that, it seems to me, it is difficult for religious traditionalists to "claim" its ideas in an exclusive sense. I'm not saying that Kevin is trying to do this. If all he is arguing is that nothing in the Declaration's ideas should prevent traditional Catholics or Christians from embracing the document, he'll get no argument from me. But there are folks who do argue that the Declaration's content is exclusively biblical or traditionalist and that's the claim against which I argue.

The text of the Declaration of Independence contains broad guarantees -- "blank checks" if you will -- to such concepts as liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness. An evangelical can look at the Declaration and see their biblical God as granting the right to live one's life as a good Christian. A Roman Catholic can look at the Declaration and see a document that complements their Aristotelean-Aquinas natural law tradition. Heck Mormons literally believe the Declaration to be sacred scripture. And social liberals can see blank checks to lifestyle liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was Robert Bork's point in Chapter 3 of "Slouching to Gomorrah." And I agree with Bork and laud the Declaration for the reason Bork opposes it: The very text of the Declaration is quite amenable to my worldview that doesn't believe government has any role in "making men moral" (as Robbie George once put it) but rather believes simply government should protect men's rights and leave us alone. The Declaration talks about "rights," not duties and says men have a right to pursue "happiness," not a duty to pursue "virtue."

At this point, "Christian America" apologist usually note the God of the Declaration clearly was the biblical God or that its ideas are all "biblical," as though they "own" the content. But as an historical and philosophical matter, this is false. Sure the Declaration is compatible with a traditional biblical worldview; but it's compatible with all sorts of worldviews. It was a document written with very broad rhetoric and in a theological sense indeed can be all things to all people, or at least many things to many people.

Natural Religion

I just found online an important sermon given in 1775 by Samuel Langdon, former President of Harvard University, entitled The Co-Incidence of Natural With Revealed Religion. It's important because it sheds light on the natural religion that forms the basis of American political theology. The Declaration of Independence invokes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and various folks argue over and misunderstand what this phrase means. One reading holds that the Founders were almost all Deists and this is a stock Deist phrase. And the other holds that the phrase in question is shorthand for the God of the Bible and revelation. Both readings are wrong.

The phrase chiefly refers to reason and sets reason not revelation as the foundation for the United States' political order. The word "nature" as used in this context refers to what is discoverable by reason unaided by scripture. Some have intimated that "the Laws of Nature" refers to reason and "the Laws of...Nature's God" refers to revelation (see for instance, John Eastman) and others have noted if the phrase twice speaks of reason it is redundant. Well the phrase is somewhat redundant because the term nature is used twice: "the Laws of Nature [1] and of Nature's [2] God...." [My emphasis.] More likely "Nature's God" was invoked after "the law of Nature" to make the natural law binding. You don't need a God to discover certain immutable principles through nature. E = MC2 is part of the "laws of nature" regardless whether God exists. But that just tells us what "is" not what "ought to be." Invoking God, in this sense helps close the is/ought gap. The concept of the laws of Nature's God is more properly termed "natural religion" (as opposed to "natural law") and that is what man can know about God and His universe from reason unaided by scripture.

And this is where Langdon's sermon proves useful. As he explains natural religion:

The religion of nature, considered in the most perfect view, is that which we suppose investigable by the natural powers of the human mind without the assistance of any revelation from heaven.

Langdon then goes on to explain "[w]hat system of religion reason alone would trace out."

Langdon was as far as I know an orthodox Trinitarian Christian (but also one of the patriotic Whig preachers). This illustrates that it wasn't just Deists but orthodox Christians as well (and those folks like America's key Founders who were in between Deism and orthodox Christianity) who believed in natural religion. So the appeal to natural religion was not a Deistic attempt to exclude orthodox Trinitarians from the Declaration of Independence but an attempt to unite Deists, Unitarians, Trinitarian Christians, and potentially all other theistic world religions. As the Masonic Book of Constitutions put it, it was "that Religion in which all Men agree."

Indeed Freemasonry united Deists, theists and orthodox Christians during the Founding era. Theists George Washington and Ben Franklin were Freemasons. Theist Thomas Jefferson and Deist Thomas Paine, though I don't believe they ever joined nonetheless spoke highly of the craft. And lots of orthodox Trinitarian Christians likewise were members. The very orthodox Presbyterian minister Samuel Miller was a Freemason and addressed its relationship with Christianity. Peter Lillback, in his study on Washington's religion, reproduces part of one of Miller's sermons:

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 George Washington's Sacred Fire, p. 505.

Natural religion served as a politically useful mechanism to unite anyone but an atheist (who were virtually non-existent at the time of the US Founding) under the precepts of what all rational men can agree on. The US Founders needed a way to take the sectarian squabbles out of politics while still remaining "religious" and natural religion (not the revealed religion of orthodox Christianity) served that purpose.

Orthodox Christians like Samuels Miller and Langdon could feel comfortable with natural religion because, as they noted, reason and revelation (natural and revealed religion) agreed.

Yet, the issue of natural religion and the US Founding poses a few challenges for a "Christian America" reading of history. First, even though many Christians of that era purported compatibility between natural and revealed religion, America's Founders when declaring independence invoked natural religion only, not revealed religion. Hence "reason" not "Christianity" forms the bedrock component of the American Founding's political system.

Indeed, because the Bible says nothing about men being endowed with unalienable rights and government's purpose being to secure them, it was more honest for America's Founders to "channel" such ideas through philosophical naturalism or theological rationalism. The Declaration of Independence truly was the product of man's reason, not biblical ideas.

For Christians, natural religion also risks importing non-biblical ideas (again like those found in the Declaration of Independence) and holding them up on the same level as sacred scripture. Indeed orthodox Christians like Samuel Langdon, Ezra Stiles and many others, in their political sermons, read Enlightenment naturalistic ideas into the Bible's text when they erroneously declared such things as the Ancient Israelites had a republic and the law of Moses was voluntarily adopted by the Jews. In short, one can argue, whatever the compatibility, natural religion is not good for the purity of Christianity's orthodoxy, exactly what Francis Schaeffer argues here, where he rails against Aristotle's influence on Christianity. The problem for Schaeffer is that it makes his Christianity anathema to the American Founding, which promoted Aristotelian, naturalistic theology often under the auspices of "rational Christianity."

Finally, natural religion, like Freemasonry (at its mildest) is problematic for orthodox Christians because it promotes, as this article on Freemasonry notes, 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.

America's key Founders [Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al.], I've long argued, held precisely to this "indifferentism" or syncretism in religious matters such that they ceased to be "Christian" in an orthodox Trinitarian sense. They were also disproportionately Masons. One could still believe in these non-Christian, Enlightenment ideas (Freemasonry, natural religion, philosophical rationalism) and still be an orthodox Christian. Yet, it's like playing with fire. Overindulging in these ideas could lead folks raised in traditional Christian homes away from the faith, which is, I believe, exactly what happened with America's key Founders.

Jefferson still wasn't a Deist, OK?

Dennis Prager is fond of saying he values clarity over agreement. Words to live by.

Only my second post for this splendid little blog, so where to start?

Instapundit today links [approvingly, we'd think] to another bland assertion of the "common knowledge" that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. He was not, or at least probably not, as I argue here. The LA Times---which printed the same "fact"---hasn't responded either, unsurprisingly. But Deists believe(d) that the Creator did his creating watchmaker-like, then took a powder on human history, closing his shop for returns or repairs.

The discussion below the post Instapundit links is what's truly problematic, full of people expressing little but opinion, emotion, and drawing lines in the sand. Whatever substantive arguments are made (few) are ignored.

All of which is emblematic of America 2008: what passes for dialogue is merely the firing of salvos between ships passing in the night, each using their Founding myths trying to get home to a home that never was, either a Christian Nation or a rigorously secular one. But America wasn't founded on either Jonathan Edwards or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, although they're both prowling about in there someplace.


The Christian Nation thesis, which implies some level of theocracy or at least Biblical authority, is fairly easy to pick apart, starting with the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment and the rather soggy religious beliefs of the first four presidents. No one sect agreed 100% with another's interpretation of the Bible, so sogginess was a desirable republican virtue. In fact, John Adams attributed his loss to Jefferson in the 1800 presidential election to Adams being seen as too closely allied with the Presbyterians. Better an atheist, or Jefferson!

Yes, folks, they had their doubts about Jefferson's religiosity even back then. It was pretty obvious he was no orthodox Christian. What, do we think these Founder guys were stupid? [Jefferson's VP Aaron Burr was the grandson of Jonathan Edwards, by the way. Call it what you will, but I call it a balanced ticket.]


So we come to the modern Rousseau crowd, who want to reduce the Founding landscape to the sum of the articles of the Constitution, as if America is no more and no less than a social contract. The legalists, the empiricists.

As if the Continental Congress that invoked not only God but Christ the Redeemer in their 1779 proclamation of thanks when war started going well was replaced by a whole new crew who signed the Constitution 8 years later. Thanks for risking your lives and fortunes, here are your gold watches, and we Enlightenment types will take over now.

Pish-posh.

The young America---virtually without exception---thought that Divine Providence smiled on the rightness of its cause, and even Jefferson wondered whether it was "probable" that "supernatural interference" would one day punish America for its sin of slavery. See, Deism does not acknowledge a God who "interferes" in human history, either to favor a young nation's cause or punish its wickedness. Neither do social contracts.

So, can we put the "Jefferson was a Deist thing" to bed? I'm counting on the gentle reader to spread the news or at least spread a shred of doubt. I mean, the "Jefferson Bible," after cutting out the miracles and Son of God stuff, still left The Lord's Prayer in. Deists don't pray. There's no point. The hotline to God is disconnected.

Which brings us to George Washington, and a merciful end to this post. I quite agree with Jonathan Rowe that there is no "smoking gun" to make Washington anything resembling an orthodox Christian. I strongly doubt he was, based on the evidence, although I remain unsure. Even his contemporaries had no certainty; we 21st Centurians have no chance.

However, it is a fact that in birthing the new American republic, George Washington grabbed a Bible and swore on it as its first president. Whether or not this was merely a symbolic gesture, it is in such symbols and myths that history is made. What Washington believed in his heart of hearts is secondary, perhaps even irrelevant.

Because anyone who thinks men fight and die over taxation without representation or start a Great Civil War over tariffs misses the point not only of what it is to be American, but to be human.

The "Christian" part can wait, as I believe we have bigger fish to fry in this day and age.

Christopher Hitchens v. Alister McGrath

I have decided to attach the following video because I believe it illustrates how both Atheists (represented by Hitchens) and Christians (represented by McGrath) often use the history of the founding fathers, American and French Revolutions, and American colonization to prove their points. Scattered throughout this video are a number of references to the early American republic, the founders, the revolution, etc. In them you will see that the interpretation of these events is based exclusively on the person's religious leanings, or lack thereof.

The video is a little long, but for people that enjoy history and religion I am sure you will find it as enjoyable as I did.

The "Moties" in Martha Nussbaum's Eye

by Ray Soller

I picked the leading line for this post as a takeoff on the title of a science fiction novel, The Mote in God's Eye, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. All that I know about Moties, the first alien species from a distant universe that are contacted by Mankind, comes from a quick inspection of the Wikipedia article. So for those science fiction fans please don't expect too much.

Thanks to Jonathan's June 3, 2008 blog, Nussbaum on The Rights of Conscience, where he talks about Nussbaum's book, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality, I watched the May 14 lecture, Equal Respect for Conscience: The Roots of a Moral and Legal Tradition, and then I enthusiastically ordered the book. When it arrived, I pored through the book. I was sufficiently absorbed, and even highlighted a number of significant passages. Here's my favorite:

If we want a fair nation, we must try to make it fair pervasively, and not just trust that a few people will set us right when we have gone terribly wrong. That means, always, not pointing out the mote in our neighbor's eye without attending to the beam in our own. "Unchristian partiality" and "the Great God Selfe" is what Roger Williams would have said. Those sins are still with us today.

Even with all this good report I, sorrowfully, have a problem. In spite of Nussbaum's great concern for "the rights of conscience," she still finds space in her book to give three "Moties" a disdainful once-over. They are Daniel C. Dennett, Micahel Newdow, and Jon Krakauer.

Take for instance where Nussbaum, on page 10 of her book, writes:

It is certainly supremely annoying when intellectuals talk down to religious people, speaking as if all smart people are atheists. Philosopher Daniel Dennett is particularly guilty of this. In an Op-ed piece in the New York Times, he coined the term "brights" for nonbelievers, suggesting very clearly that the right name for believers was "dummies." In his popular new book Breaking the Spell --- whose very title drips contempt --- he contrasts religious people with philosophers, as if there were no such thing as a religious philosopher. I am a philosopher, but I am and many of my professional colleagues disagree with Dennett personally: we our ourselves religious people. Almost all, furthermore, would disagree with Dennett about respect for others: we think that people's religious commitments should be respected, and it is simply not respectful to imply that religion is a "spell" or that people who accept such beliefs are dummies. [Here' the part where I get concerned - ] Michael Newdow , the Plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance case (and in a new similar case recently decided in California) is similar to Dennett: a proud atheist who has evident contempt for religious beliefs and religious people. Many Americans of goodwill associate the very idea of the "separation of church and state" with this sort of smug atheism.

After reading the previous paragraph, I thought it would be wise to read Dennett's Op-Ed piece to see whether Nussbaum was being accurate. It turns out from what I read, Nussbaum was explaining more about how she reacted when she had read (or, perhaps, just heard about) rather than what the article said. Just look at this Dennett quote from the article:

The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.

A simple observation shows Nussbaum was wrong about the statement saying that Dennett had coined the term "brights," and Dennett, at least in his own mind, wrote that self-identification as a bright "is not a boast" but a matter of establishing a group awareness of one's self. Personally, I can take Dennett at his word, because it is something of a stretch to say that the title of Dennett's recent book, Breaking the Spell, is "dripping with contempt" without Nussbaum citing a single sentence from the book.

Nussbaum continues by saying Micahel Newdow is "similar to Dennett: a proud atheist who has evident contempt for religious beliefs and religious people." Now that's a mouth full, and it is a matter on which I can respond with a degree of personal experience. I've worked as an historical researcher at Newdow's invitation to examine the question as to whether George Washington actually added a religious codicil to his presidential oath, and I've also been a one-time guest of his hospitality. I, consequently, have no qualms stating that Nussbaum's allegation against Michael Newdow has no substance to it other than how she sees the the world through her own mote-speckled eyes. My experience has been that anyone who refers to Michael Newdow as "an outspoken atheist who openly scoffs at religious belief" is woefully ill-informed.

Anyone who cares to see beyond Nussbaum's version of "Newdow, the scoffer" can see the real, live Michael Newdow when he presented his case against “under God” in a panel discussion, Religious Freedom and the Pledge of Allegiance, along side Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer and social critic, and Phillip Munoz, an assistant professor of political philosophy and American Constitutional law at Tufts University. The discussion was moderated by Alan Wolfe, professor of political science and director of Boston College's Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life. It's available here.

The remaing person on Nussbaum's list of Moties is Jon Krakauer. Here, the Krakauer-dressdown appears well into book, near the end of Capter 5 - Fearing Strangers, Section I - Principles and Anxities. On page 179 she writes:

Journalist Krakauer's recent book about Mormon polygamy, for example. is a direct descendant of the sensationalistic anti-Mormon novels of the 1850's. It manages to meld contemporary instances of highly unusual dissident behavior with the history and traditions of the mainstream religion itself, thus whipping up panic about the book's own subtitle calls "A Story of Violent Faith."<5>

Page 381 - footnote 5: Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (New York: Random House, 2003). Krakauer is known for writing about mountaineering, and appears to have no credentials in the area of religion.

I've read Krakauer's book, and he is definitely not a Mormon apologist. However, this doesn't imply, by any means, that his book resembles the anti-Mormon sensationalist novels from the 1850's. Krakauer is a journalist, and he does a responsible job of supporting his narrative with the necessary facts. His book describes the religious-cultural setting and events that led up to the Lafferty brother's murderous rampage, which occurred on Utah's Mormon Pioneer Day of July 24, 1984. He follows up with the arrest of Dan and Ron Lafferty, their trials, and conviction of the murder charges. The book is a worthwhile read, and Chapters 23, Judgment in Provo, and 24, The Great and Dreadful Day, by themselves, deserve to be read by people of all varieties of religious belief.

Nussbaum, in her section of footnotes, takes a crack at Krakauer, because he "appears to have no credentials in the area of religion." This ignores Krakauer's explanation (page 334), where he says, "I spent approximately a year writing this book, and more than three years doing the research on which the writing is based." Had Nussbaum consulted with Krakauer, or properly researched the material for Chapter 5, Section II, Mormon Polygamy: "Always ... Odious"?, it would have shown itself. Instead, we have:

Page 182 - Smith's early career causes concern about fraud since he was accused of bilking people out of their money.
Not exactly true. There was only one charge of his being engaged in a disreputable occupation - treasure digging. His elderly employer, Josiah Stowell, testified that he felt confident that Smith could find treasure on his property. Family members filed charges to keep their father from squandering his money (their inheritance). Smith was found guilty and was told to get lost and not to come back. No one asked for a refund of the wages that were paid out. Smith promised to reform himself. (Nussbaum might better have said that this was a frivolous charge in contrast to Smith's later legal problems in Illinois.)

Page 183 - Smith imprisoned in Nauvoo, IL, on a frivilous charge.
Not true. Smith was incarcerated in the jail located at Carthage, Illinois. His answering to charges based on the destruction of the brand new anti-Mormon Expositor press was not "frivolous." I've read that Smith claimed some legal grounds for his action, because he & the town council ruled that the offensive publication endangered the peace. The "apostate" Mormons who owned the Expositor were trying to expose polygamy that the Mormon leaders were secretly passing off as spiritual wives.

Page 183 - The [Nauvoo] jail was stormed by 100 men. Joseph Smith and his brother were murdered.
That's a whitewash. The assassination occurred in Carthage, Illinois. The "100 men" were members of the Illinois state militia sent out by the State Governor, Thomas Ford, to "restore order" among the Mormons. After Smith's arrest, the militia was disbanded with Smith in jail, and they, then, being fully armed stormed the jail. It was a state-sponsored vigilante execution. No convictions were ever obtained for the double murder. Mormons were expelled from the state. (I can't imagine why Nussbaum, who holds several positions at the prestigious University of Chicago, didn't tell more of this story that occurred in the fine state of Illinois).

Finally then, if Nussbaum really feels that "This [public] conversation will go better if education at all levels does better at conveying the facts about the different religions that are present in our society," (page 359) then my word of advice to her is that she engage in a process of self-examination to see what's causing her irritable eye-Moties.

George Washington on Christianity

George Washington was pro-Christian. He had a lot of positive things to say about the Christian religion. However, it is a non-sequitur to conclude, therefore, he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. Orthodox Trinitarian Christianity is an extremely narrow creed; it believes Jesus the only way to God and other religions false. Nothing in Washington's praise for the Christian religion suggests he believed in this narrow form of Christianity. To the contrary, the best evidence shows Washington, if he can be termed Christian at all, held to a liberal Protestant theology in line with what the other key Founders -- J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin -- believed.

All were pro-Christianity because they were "pro-religion" in general. They held the purpose of "religion" or "Christianity" was to make men moral (not necessarily to be saved through Christ's blood atonement). Works were more important than faith for salvation. The test of "sound" religion was that it in fact made men moral. As such if the "ends" (morality) were achieved, the means (which religion you are) really didn't matter. But Christianity had an edge over other world religions, not because of Jesus' exclusive claim to God or His status as second person in the Trinity, but because He was the greatest moral teacher. Yet, they still saw a place at the table of "sound religion" for virtually all of the world's religions as valid ways to God. Their creed, I believe, was key in making America a haven for non-Christian religions.

Further, theirs was a form of hyper-Arminianism that was theologically unitarian and universalist. In short, the "Protestantism" of Washington et al. was precisely the kind of "Christianity" that orthodox theologian John MacArthur rails against here. This is why if orthodox Trinitarian Christians truly understood what Washington and the other key Founders believed they'd either call it "heresy" or, like Mormonism, "not Christianity." That's why orthodox Christian scholar of America's Founding, Dr. Gregg Frazer, terms their belief system "theistic rationalism," not "Christianity."

First quotations from other key Founders who are not George Washington. Then, Washington's:

"My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin's, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power."

-- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.

"No point of Faith is so plain, as that Morality is our Duty; for all Sides agree in that. A virtuous Heretick shall be saved before a wicked Christian."

-- Benjamin Franklin, "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," April 10, 1735.

"...the design of Christianity was not to make men good Riddle Solvers or good mystery mongers, but good men, good magestrates and good Subjects...."

-- John Adams, Dairy, Feb. 18, 1756

"Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one....Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means."

-- Benjamin Franklin, "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," April 10, 1735.

"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them."

-- Benjamin Franklin to Ezra Stiles, March 9. 1790.

"Every religion consists of moral precepts, and of dogmas. In the first they all agree. All forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, bear false witness &ca. and these are the articles necessary for the preservation of order, justice, and happiness in society. In their particular dogmas all differ; no two professing the same. These respect vestments, ceremonies, physical opinions, and metaphysical speculations, totally unconnected with morality, and unimportant to the legitimate objects of society. Yet these are the questions on which have hung the bitter schisms of Nazarenes, Socinians, Arians, Athanasians in former times, and now of Trinitarians, Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers &c. Among the Mahometans we are told that thousands fell victims to the dispute whether the first or second toe of Mahomet was longest; and what blood, how many human lives have the words 'this do in remembrance of me' cost the Christian world!...We see good men in all religions, and as many in one as another. It is then a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the [unimportant points] innocent questions on which we schismatize, and think it enough to hold fast to those moral precepts which are of the essence of Christianity, and of all other religions."

-- Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, Sept. 27, 1809

"I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious."

-- John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.

Now go and read every single time Washington praises the Christian religion and see that it is always in the context of equating Christianity with mere morality not orthodox Christian doctrine. The pietists use the following as "proof quotes" to show that Washington wasn't a Deist, therefore he was a "Christian." But what they actually show is that Washington was a "Christian" in the same way that J. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were "Christians." My emphasis or italics will be on those parts of Washington's words that illustrate my contention.

“To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good [my emphasis]."

-- George Washington, General Orders, Saturday, May 2, 1778.

"While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives and the beneficence of their actions; for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society [my emphasis].

"I desire you to accept my acknowledgments for your laudable endeavours to render men sober, honest, and good Citizens, and the obedient subjects of a lawful government [my emphasis]."

-- George Washington, Letter to General Assembly of Presbyterian Churches, May 1789.

"Without reverberating the arguments in support of the humane and benevolent intention of Lady Huntington to christianize and reduce to a state of civilization the Savage tribes within the limits of the American States, or discanting upon the advantages which the Union may derive from the Emigration which is blended with, and becomes part of the plan, I highly approve of them,...[my emphasis]."

-- George Washington To SIR JAMES JAY, January 25, 1785.

"In the meantime, it will be a desirable thing for the protection of the Union to co-operate, as far as circumstances may conveniently admit, with the disinterested endeavours of your Society to civilize and Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness [my emphasis]."

-- George Washington to The Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, July, 1789.

Finally, keep in mind that Washington never spoke in orthodox Trinitarian language, but used generic philosophical titles for God. Never said "Father, Son, Holy Spirit," never used the word "Redeemer" (these were Congress' not Washington's words!), systematically avoided discussing Jesus by name or example as though he didn't care about or had no personal relationship with Jesus, and systematically avoided communion in his Church to which he nominally belonged.

Geof Stone on the "Christian Nation" Question

University of Chicago School of Law Professor Geof Stone has a fairly long video lecture on the Christian Nation/religion of the key Founders question. It's quite good. Stone is an ardent secular leftist and as such he overstates the Deist influence. He put Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in the same box as Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen, which I would not. However, Stone does recognize the "hybrid" system that mixed elements of Christianity with Deism and properly places Washington, J. Adams, and others in that box. He actually uses the term "theistic rationalist" when discussing Washington's faith. And he also informs about how many of these "Deists" could be very pro "religion and morality" in their rhetoric and attended Christian Churches. Finally he includes some great discussion of the concept of American "civil religion" that parallels the research I've uncovered.

Check it out.

Dilulio on American Civil Religion

Here is the first chapter from John Dilulio's "Godly Republic."

I agree that his centrist-civil religion approach is consistent with America's Founding (that America's public institution's presuppose a Supreme Being, and therefore supplications to such ought to be constitutional). However, I think the scholarly case made by such figures as Steven Waldman and Jon Meacham is more accurate. Here is Dilulio's thesis:

The truth, however, is that present-day America is blessed to be in religious terms pretty much what Madison and most of the other framers intended it to be. It is a godly republic with governmental institutions that (as Justice Douglas phrased it) “presuppose” monotheistic belief in the “Supreme Being” known to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as the God of Abraham. It is a godly republic that affords a special civic status to nondenominational and interfaith (God-centered) religious expression. It is a godly republic that respects, promotes, and protects religious pluralism: Methodists, Muslims, Mormons, and all other faiths are welcome. It is a godly republic in which both the Constitution and federal laws prohibit government from discriminating against citizens who profess no faith at all (atheists have the same constitutional standing as Anglicans) or who are actively, but peacefully, hostile to all religion or to all church-state collaboration (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is no more or less entitled to tax-exempt nonprofit status than the National Association of Evangelicals).

In his book, Dilulio takes slight issue with Jon Meacham's thesis which is well summarized in an article by Meacham here.

However, American history suggests that allusions to faith in the political arena are part of what Benjamin Franklin called "public religion," a religion whose God is perhaps best understood as the "Creator" and the "Nature's God" of the Declaration of Independence. This was not the God of Abraham or God the Father of the Holy Trinity, but a more generic figure who made the world, is active in it through the workings of providence, and will ultimately judge how people conducted themselves in life.

Taken together, the past reveals that the benefits of faith in God in our public life have outweighed their costs. "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records," said Alexander Hamilton. "They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

The issue is whether the God of the American Founding is the "God of Abraham." I would argue not necessarily, instead of simply not. The God of the American Founding is the God of natural religion [i.e., laws of Nature and of Nature's God], one whom all good men worship, regardless of whether their religion is Abrahamic. To Christians, it is a Triune God, to Jews, Unitarians and Muslims, it is a unitary father, and to others it is simply a Providence that goes by many names to many peoples. For instance, to Native Americans such Providence goes by the name "The Great Spirit."

As Presidents, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison repeatedly made public supplications to "The Great Spirit" by name, when speaking to unconverted American Indians. For instance, Washington:

I now send my best wishes to the Cherokees, and pray the Great spirit to preserve them.

-- TALK TO THE CHEROKEE NATION, August 29, 1796.

I now sincerely wish you a good Journey and hope you may find your [families and] Brothers well on your Return, and that [the Great Spirit above] 55 may long preserve your Nations in peace with each other and with the United States.

-- To THE CHIEFS AND WARRIORS, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WYANDOTS, DELAWARES, SHAWANOES, OTTAWAS, CHIPPEWAS, POTAWATIMES, MIAMIS, EEL RIVER, WEEAS, KICKAPOOS, PIANKASHAWS, AND KASKASKIAS, November 29, 1796.

Next Jefferson:

I receive with great satisfaction the visit you have been so kind as to make us at this place, and I thank the Great Spirit who has conducted you to us in health and safety. It is well that friends should sometimes meet, open their minds mutually, and renew the chain of affection. Made by the same Great Spirit, and living in the same land with our brothers, the red men, we consider ourselves as of the same family; we wish to live with them as one people, and to cherish their interests аз our own.

-- To the Brothers and friends of the Miamis, Pottawatomies, and Weeauks, January 7, 1802.

I thank the Great Spirit that he has conducted you hither in health and safety, and that we have an opportunity of renewing our amity, and of holding friendly conference together. It is a circumstance of great satisfaction to us that we are in peace and good understanding with all our red brethren, and that we discover in them the same disposition to continue so which we feel ourselves. It is our earnest desire to merit, and possess their affections, by rendering them strict justice, prohibiting injury from others. aiding their endeavors to learn the culture of the earth, and to raise useful animals, and befriending them as good neighbors, and in every other way in our power. By mutual endeavors to do good to each other, the happiness of both will be better promoted than by efforts of mutual destruction. We are all created by the same Great Spirit; children of the same family. Why should we not live then as brothers ought to do?

-- To The Brothers of the Delaware and Shawanee Nations, February 10, 1802.

And Madison:

I have a further advice of my Red children. You see how the country of the eighteen fires is filled with people. They increase like the corn they put into the ground. They all have good houses to shelter them from all weathers, good clothes suitable to all seasons; and as for food, of all sorts, you see they have enough and to spare. No man, woman, or child, of the eighteen fires, ever perished of hunger. Compare all this with the condition of the Red people. They are scattered here and there in handfulls. Their lodges are cold, leak, and smoky. They have hard fare, and often not enough of it.

Why this mighty difference? The reason, my Red children, is plain. The white people breed cattle and sheep. They spin and weave. Their heads and their hands make all the elements and productions of nature useful to them.

It is in your power to be like them. The ground that feeds one lodge by hunting, would feed a great band by the plough & the hoe. The Great Spirit has given you, like your white brethren, good heads to contrive, and strong arms, and active bodies. Use them like your white brethren of the eighteen fires, and like them, your little sparks will grow into great fires. You will be well fed, dwell in good houses, and enjoy the happiness for which you, like them, were created. These are the words of your father to his red children. The Great Spirit who is the father of us all, approves them. Let them pass through the ear in to the heart. Carry them home to your people; and as long as you remember this visit to your father of the eighteen fires, remember these are his last and best words to you!

-- To My Red Children, August 1812.

John Adams may well have done the same. However, I haven't been able to find his quotations. He certainly believed all world religions worshipped the same God and noted to Jefferson that Hindus worshipped the same God they did.

America's civil religion obviously presents a problem for atheists who don't believe in a God or for polytheists who don't like the supplication to a singular monotheistic God. However, America's civil religion may equally impose a philosophical problem for honest orthodox Trinitarian Christians who realize that all of these religions really don't worship the same God that they do and that America's Founders therefore erred in trying to construct a civil religion based on natural religion that held all good men of all religions worship the same God. See for instance Joe Carter's case against the civil religion here, where he also notes the idea comes from Rousseau, who was explicitly anti-Christian. America's key Founders including Jefferson, I don't believe consciously followed Rousseau. Rather, they seemed to absorb his powerful ideas through osmosis. But it doesn't change the fact that their civil religion (which is represented today by things such as "under God," "in God We Trust" and the National Day of Prayer) is a Rousseauian notion at its heart.

I don't think such an honest orthodox Christian should mind saying things like "under God" or "In God We Trust." After all, to him, these things can mean his own God. Just as long as he takes such with a grain of salt and understands the way America's Founders intended the civil religion to work was that generic references to "under God" likewise included concepts of God (like Allah or the Great Spirit) that he would consider false teachings.

Bottom line for orthodox Christians, don't look for redemption in politics; if you do, you will invariably commit idolatry against your God.

Garry Wills on the Founders on Religion

Garry Wills writes interesting, readable works, even if I often disagree with his perspective. This book -- Head and Heart -- is no different. Much of what he's written parallels the research I've done for the past few years on my blogs. The book has some minor factual mistakes and typos (as most books do) -- for instance, Timothy Dwight was from Yale, not Harvard (p. 134), and it was Dr. Abercrombie, not Bishop White who publicly complained of George Washington's refusal to take communion which led Washington to stop attending on communion Sundays (p. 169).

The book rightly focuses on theological unitarianism as an Enlightenment religion and a precursor to the more radical deism that would come later. The book properly notes denial of the Trinity as an important heterodox tenet of more Enlightened liberal religious minds of America's Founding era, naming Mayhew, Chauncy, Gay as Unitarian American preachers who so influenced America's Founders and their rational religion. He also notes America's Founders' philosophical heroes in England -- Milton, Newton, Locke, Clarke, Priestley and others -- as enlightened Unitarians. Some of these passages look like they could have been written by me -- not accusing him of anything, just noting that we draw from many of the same sources seem to think along the same track.

And so it is that I must offer my biggest criticism of the book: Wills is a political liberal and a secular leftist -- nothing wrong with that. Though, this book, like much of his work, is ideological (as some might argue all history is). The secular left are too quick to categorize too many of America's Founders as "Deists" (just as the religious right are too quick to take them as "Christians") and Wills falls prey to the same error. Here is Wills:

The reaction of the Great Awakening provided an American Unitarian boost that made Deism the religion of the educated class by the middle of the 18th century. Legal scholar William Lee Miller writes that the chief founders of the nation were all Deists -- he lists Washington, Franklin, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and Paine, though many more leaders of the founding era could be added (Benjamin Rush, John Witherspoon, David Rittenhouse, Philip Freneau, Joel Barlow, Aaron Burr, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Tench Coxe, to name some). Their agreement on the question of God crossed political and geographic lines. Federalist and Republican, North and South, an Adams and a Jefferson, a Hamilton and a Madison -- all were professed Deists.

Those names only qualify as "Deist" if we read the term "Deist" very broadly. (And no they didn't tend to call themselves "Deist."). John Witherspoon clearly was an orthodox Christian of the Calvinist Presbyterian bent. The kernel of truth to the claim he was "Deist" is that Witherspoon was a naturalist and a philosophical rationalist who promoted many non-Christian Scottish Enlightenment ideas. This flirtation with Enlightenment theory and philosophical rationalism could have led Witherspoon down the road to unitarianism, theistic rationalism or deistic beliefs, but it didn't; he remained orthodox.

And if we are going to read "Deism" in such a broad way, to be fair, we ought to read "Christianity" just as broadly, and if we did, all mentioned except for Paine and maybe a few others could be understood as "Christian." Tit for tat. The key Founders -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton (before his end of like conversion to orthodox Christianity) were either, if read broadly, both Christians and Deists (or "Christian-Deists" as David L. Holmes puts it) or, if read narrowly, neither, but somewhere in between with rationalism as the trumping element. Witherspoon, as noted, remained orthodox. Benjamin Rush was a Trinitarian Universalist believing all would eventually be saved through Christ's universal Atonement. Paine was a strict Deist. I'm not sure about the others.

More David Barton: Blah, blah, rabble, rabble

More from the self-proclaimed expert on American history, Christian Nationalist David Barton:




As Ed Darrell stated, "If Barton doesn't want to be used as a pinata, he shouldn't cover himself in colored tissue, hang from a tree, and act so much like a relative of a donkey. Maybe bashing Barton will produce a shower of candy! God knows he's not full of history." I apologize to my conservative Christian friends for being so strong here, but in all seriousness this guy just doesn't get it.

Christianity and Rights

To continue my conversation with Jonathan (which I hope is of interest to more than just the two of us...):

I agree with a great deal of what Jonathan writes in his latest installment. It seems to me that the difference between our positions concerning the Founding and its principles largely lies in this: I see Jonathan as drawing a boundary too constrictive and impermeable around the Founding ideas. I cannot dispute that Jefferson and other deists (or whatever they all were--that's another ongoing debate in this space) viewed the Declaration of Independence—to use one important, concrete example—through the lens of their particular worldview. But does that mean that the text itself is not open, to some extent, to other interpretations through the lenses of other worldviews? To return to an earlier example, the Catholic signer of the Declaration, Charles Carroll, was not a theologian, but I'm not aware that anyone has questioned in general his Catholic orthodoxy. How could he sign the Declaration if it were simply, case open and shut, an expression of principles rooted in a worldview hostile to or at least inconsistent with a Catholic one? Did he misunderstand it? Was he dishonest? My own view is that he was neither and that he, like me some years later, can in good conscience fully subscribe to the principles articulated by the Declaration, even if he (like me) would want to qualify and clarify its meaning in a way that rendered it consistent with the Catholic tradition. That is not to say that the parameters of meaning are utterly amorphous: there are limits to how the words "inalienable rights" can be legitimately interpreted. Jonathan wants to set those limits relatively more narrowly; I want them to be more expansive.

This is not a problem unique to the Founding, by the way. The UN Declaration of Human Rights was subscribed to by people from an even wider variety of religious/political/philosophical points of view. And its meaning and value have similarly been debated at length. The example is relevant: Catholic proponent Jacques Maritain said that it is possible to "establish a common formulation" of human rights even if we will not find a "common rational justification of these...rights."

Jonathan's intriguing statement here is a seed for further discussion:

However, we don't necessarily need the traditional, orthodox understanding of the Deity to serve the role of the ultimate guarantor of liberty and equality rights (one could argue that society needs the orthodox God for other reasons, but that's a discussion topic for another day). The God of Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin (the men who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence) serves that role just fine. Indeed some might argue, given this was the God in whom the formulators of liberal democracy believed -- the God who inspired them -- this God is a better guarantor of political rights than the orthodox biblical God.

It's a very interesting claim, which can be founded on a strong argument. But in the end I don't agree. Reasons forthcoming in a post some other time.