Am I Tackling a Strawman? (Or Why I Do What I Do)
Jonathan Rowe on Apr 26th 2006 09:30 pm |
One of the niches that I have carved out in the blogsphere is a thorough (but I think ultimately fair) examination of the key Founders’ religious beliefs, done in the context of refuting the “Christian Nation” thesis. Note, refuting the “Christian Nation”* myth (as I think I have aptly done many times over) is not the same thing supporting a modern, 20th Century, post-Everson, ACLU style notion of the Separation of Church and State. Indeed, it’s far easier to refute the Christian Nation thesis than to demonstrate that the Founders would have seen eye-to-eye with the ACLU’s absolutist notion of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State.
Indeed, one can understand that the key Founders were not orthodox Christians (arguably, as theological Unitarians, not Christians at all) and that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution have little if anything to do with creating a “Christian Nation,” but still vehemently disagree with the Court’s modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Fair enough.
And indeed, few if any in the historical academy (including the relatively small number of conservatives in respectable positions in the Academy) take the “Christian Nation” claim seriously.
So one big question that I often ask myself is, “Am I tackling a strawman?”
Yes and no. Why is tackling the Christian Nation thesis necessary? Based on my meticulous studying of this issue over a number of years, I have concluded that millions of people are being mislead by the likes of D. James Kennedy, David Barton, Rod Parsley, William Federer and others into believing the “Christian Nation” myth. If it weren’t for the millions who believe this twaddle, I would indeed be tackling a strawman. In terms of the practical effect of exposing their myth — if they realize that the US wasn’t “founded” by Christians to be a “Christian” nation, that indeed the key founders were theological Unitarians, thus not Christians as they understand that term, that they never “owned” the Founding as they were (mis)taught, they’d be less zealous about trying to “Reclaim America” and perhaps adopt a more “live and let live” attitude about culture and society.
And if religious conservatives are being treated unequally by the Courts or public institutions, I’ll back them in their dispute. But, as many have pointed out, the “war against Christians” in many ways is a loss of privilege, NOT real unequal or unfair treatment. When it comes to hate-crimes laws that might stifle their freedom of speech, I’m entirely on their side. When it comes to expression of religion in the public square, I’m all for it as long as it’s done pursuant to a generally applicable, neutral program where their traditional religious speech is given no special privilege against non-traditional, unorthodox, religious or atheistic speech.
But whatever the legitimate gripes of religious conservatives, our Founders didn’t establish this nation so that we could be ruled by revealed religion. America was founded under the rubrics of “Nature” and “Reason,” and in the ideal, our Founders desired that we be ruled by self-evident principles ascertainable by Man’s Reason alone.
*Whether America was founded by “Christians” (meaning orthodox evangelical/fundamentalist types), for “Christians” to create a “Chrisitan Nation” (in a public/governmental sense, as opposed to a private/demographic sense). For instance, in a demographic sense, we are predominantly white. Yet, our public institutions are ideally neutral on matters of race. Thus, those who thunder that America is a “white nation” are certainly attempting to make a much larger (and nefarious) point than merely describing America’s racial demographics. As the Christian Nation myth goes (I’m exaggerating a little bit for rhetorical flair; but not too far off from the way Barton, Kennedy, Demar, et al. tell the story), the Founders “opened” their Bibles and “found” the Declaration and the US Constitution in there. Moreover, the US was “founded” so those Christians could write as much of the Bible as they wanted into the civil law and the citizenry be ruled by (their interpretation) of revealed religion. This is what it means to be a nation “Under God” according to their understanding of the phrase. In short, the “Christian Nation” crowd has a theocratic agenda that distorts history to suit that agenda.
Filed in Uncategorized
Probably the most lucid, well-reasoned perspective I have ever read on the topic. Couldn’t agree more and thank you.
As one who has joined with Jon in this battle for the last 3 years, I agree with everything he says here completely. I think it’s very important to point out the historical inaccuracies of both sides and establish a rational middle ground. I cringe as much when I hear someone say that the Founders were all deists as I do when I hear Barton or Kennedy claim that they were all Christians. As a deist myself, I would love it if all of the founding fathers had been deists – it just ain’t true. Most, in fact, were Christians of one kind or another. The leading founders, however, were certainly heavily influenced by deism and Unitarianism (which weren’t all that distinguishable at the time) and were not orthodox Christians by any reasonable standard. The reality is that the founding of this country was the result of a set of compromises between the two. As Jon and I have both liked to put it, ironically echoing a man neither of us agrees with on much (Leo Strauss), it was the coming together of Athens and Jerusalem.
Far too many people get caught up in this simplistic dichotomy of religion vs secularism or right vs left and they can’t bring themselves to admit that even a small portion of what They think just might be true. If the other side says X, then they must take the position ~X, even if the truth is Y. They use the founders as empty canvasses on which to paint portraits of themselves rather than objectively rendering the views of these men as they actually were. I’ve seen attempts to turn Thomas Jefferson, a man who rejected not only the divinity of Jesus but the notion that Jesus ever claimed to be divine, into an orthodox Christian. And I’ve seen attempts to turn Thomas Paine, who believed strongly in a benevolent God, into an atheist. If the brush is broad enough, all nuance is lost and people can see whatever they want in the painting.
Thanks Purplethink and well said Ed!
A self-evident principle would require no reason to ascertain.
Good post Jon, but I disagree with this point. The truth is that our founders came from a wide range of backgrounds. Some of them believed in “natural rights” (Jefferson), some were borderline theocrats (Henry), others radicals (Rush, Paine). Are you not guilty of some neo-enlightenment revisionism to paint the founders as part of your team also?
[...] Positive Liberty � Blog Archive � Am I Tackling a Strawman? (Or Why I Do What I Do) [...]
Matthew:
That’s a really great question. No doubt, the public theory of government principles from which our Founders constructed the Declaration and Constitution drew from a variety of ideological sources including Biblical Principles, Pagan Greco-Roman Democratic and Republican Theories, English Common Law Principles (the so called, “rights of Englishmen”), and of course, the Enlightenment.
Something had to be dominant, and it was the Enlightenment which was dominant.
I think this is why, interestingly, though the majority of the “Founding Fathers” may not have been “men of the Enlightenment” in their personal “faith” (they may indeed have been closer to the orthodox Christianity side of the fence), the KEY Framers, the ones who had the most to do with putting forth the principles upon which we Declared Independence and constructed the Constitution were indeed men of the Enlightenment and adhered to their Enlightenment-oriented Unitarian faith which Gregg Frazer deems, “Theistic Rationalism.”
[...] Am I Tackling a Strawman? (Or Why I Do What I Do) [...]
[...] As I’ve noted before, my own personal interest, as a libertarian, in debunking the Christian Nation nonsense is simply, if these folks understand they never “owned” our Founding as they have been erroneously taught, they’d be less zealous about trying to “reclaim” it, and consequently adopt a more “live and let live” attitude about government and culture. [...]
[...] Again, some times I feel like I’m tackling a strawman given that few if any social conservatives scholars in respectable places in the academy push the Christian America thesis and that legitimate issues about church/state matters and proper interpretation of the Constitution’s religion clauses remain. [...]