Dershowitz’s Blasphemy
Jonathan Rowe on May 30th 2007
I was thumbing through this yesterday at Barnes & Noble; it’s definitely on my summer reading list. The book is sort of a repackaging of a book he wrote just four years ago in 2003 called America Declares Independence.
So why did he need to write a new one? Back then as today, the religious right has been “revising” history, arguing America was founded on “Christian principles” to be a “Christian Nation.” Though he already debunked such notion in the past book, presently, books with similar themes are quite hot. So Dershowitz wants back in the game.
To support his argument from his last book, Dershowitz draws from Brooke Allen’s and Jon Meacham’s recent books on the matter. And, to make the book timely, he incorporates some recent controversies such as the Rep. Keith Ellison’s swearing in on the Koran, and the Stephen Williams brouhaha, where it was falsely claimed that this public school teacher couldn’t teach his students the Declaration of Independence, when, in reality, he was teaching them fraudulent history, complete with David Barton’s phony quotations.
As a work of serious scholarship, from what I have read, I’d give it a mixed review. Dershowitz is quite brilliant and has no problem demolishing the Christian Nation fraud. But it doesn’t take someone of his intellect to destroy such a straw man.
Parts of the book dig deep into the primary sources (those parts are strong). Huge parts of the book, though, simply reiterate what other experts conclude. In an area as disputed as what the Founding Fathers personally believed on religion, simply turning to what some expert concludes isn’t good enough.
And, he categorizes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin as “deists.” This is problematic because 1) they didn’t call themselves deists. And 2) each of them invoked an active personal God and Dershowitz himself defines deism as belief in a non-interventionist God. Now, they may well have been deists. But if they were, one has to explain why they oft-talked of a warm personal God, not a cold distant watchmaker. And Dershowitz, from what I’ve been able to glean (I spent about an hour with it yesterday, but still haven’t bought it), doesn’t.
It’s more of a “fun,” informative read than a work that seriously breaks new ground in scholarly research.
The book’s site generously offers some excerpts, and the blurbs from some very prominent folks are entertaining as well (I especially like Pete Stark’s).
“This is an engaging refutation of an insidious form of ‘political correctness’ of the right—the nonsensical idea that our country was founded on Christian principles. Anyone, left or right, who admires the foundations of American democracy will enjoy this spirited reminder of the Founding Fathers’ true genius.”
—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor, Harvard University author of The Language Instinct, The Blank Slate, and The Stuff of Thought“The wall of separation between church and state is one of the great barriers to religious tyranny. Among the wall’s most articulate defenders is Dershowitz, who shows in this readable book why the authors of our Declaration feared theocracy and favored democracy.”
—Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law at New York Law School and President of the American Civil Liberties Union“Blasphemy proves that many Christians are as deliberately bewildered about the history of our nation as they are about the evolution of life on this planet. Dershowitz has done a great service in rescuing Jefferson, Adams, and the other Founding Fathers from the religious delusions of the Christian Right. This book will strike a great blow to the forces of theocracy in the United States.”
—Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation“Right wing Christian zealots don’t know Thomas Jefferson from Jefferson Starship. The assertion that our Declaration of Independence is a Christian document is absurd. Colonists fled Europe to escape religious persecution, not to be controlled by a different religion. Dershowitz proves that Jefferson and his compatriots purposely built a wall between Church and State that the Religious Right is now attempting to destroy. If conservative Christians are successful at shoving God down our throats, the end of democracy as we know it will soon follow.”
—U.S. Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA)“Blasphemy is a brilliant, well-researched critique of the Religious Right’s ‘Christian Nation’ mythology and its misuse of the American historical record. Just as significant, Professor Dershowitz illuminates the open hostility and vitriol this movement routinely exhibits toward all, religious or secular, who dare to challenge its faulty conclusions.”
—Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Filed in The Belfry, The Bookshelf, The Bureau
You’d have to be either ignorant or a liar to not admit that whatever “brand” of Christianity/Religion the founding fathers were they strongly believed in, relied on, and though important to teach:
1) God
2) The Bible
3) Judeo-Christian Ethic.
Look at the walls in the buildings, look to the history of the public school and the ivy league colleges, look at their references in speeches, look at the books and pamphlets they wrote.
arguing America was founded on “Christian principles” to be a “Christian Nation.”>>
Yes, a Christian nation formed of Christian states.
Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [July 4th]? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. . ?
President John Q. Adams
John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. –President John Quincy Adams
John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould And Lincoln, 1860), p. xxix.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY REFERS TO CHRISTIANITY, SINCE CHRISTIANITY COULD ONLY BECOME THE NATIONAL CHURCH(RELIGION)
All of these were in force after the Constitution was ratified, proving the law of nature is Yahweh, the God of Israel, because the men who ratified the Constitution were the same men who ratified the state constitutions.
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Thomas Jefferson Second Inaugural Address, 1805, Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
The definition of “religion” can be seen in the discussions of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment (”no…establishment of religion”) during the state conventions to ratify the Constitution. In North Carolina, Gov. Johnston expressed these very representative remarks:
I know of but two or three states where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other state, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe, prevail. In New York, they are divided very much: the most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. In New Jersey, they are as much divided as we are. In Pennsylvania, if any sect prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In Maryland, the Episcopalians are most numerous, though there are other sects. In Virginia, there are many sects; you all know what their religious sentiments are. So in all the Southern States they differ; as also in New Hampshire. I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established.
Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836, vol. IV, p. 199.
James Wilson, who later became a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, joined Thomas Mifflin in signing the U.S. Constitution, including Article VI, yet returned home to Pennsylvania to help draft the state constitution in 1790, which required that each member of the legislature, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz,
“I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.”
Pennsylvania Frame of Government, Sec 10, in The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America, Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1795, p. 81
NEW YORK 1777 (until 1821) That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected.
NEW JERSEY 1776 (until 1844) XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one
religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and
that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the
enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious
principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith
of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably
under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of
being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a
member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and
freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their
fellow subjects.
Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:
There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.
Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:
Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”
That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]
The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:
The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.
Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make
and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”
Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law:
and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]
The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (through 1862) included:
The right of the people of this commonwealth to… invest their Legislature with power to authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or
religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of
piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntary. [pp.429-430]
Continental Congress (1783), ratified a peace treaty with Great Britain at the close of
the Revolutionary War. The treaty began:
In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence
to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the
Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith… and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences… [p.149]
Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the:
Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)
The Constitution stipulated:
Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination
of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]
Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated:
Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes
his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked.
And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]
The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated:
Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
“I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the
Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old
and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]
The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording:
The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability
of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both. [p.179]
Congress of the United States of America (1822), ratified in both the House and Senate of the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, the Convention for Indemnity under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814. It begins with these words:
In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity. [pp.167-168]
KENTUCKY 1799- that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent.
TENNESSEE 1796- III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or modes of worship.
http://hclp.org/1796.html
Ministry only referred to Christianity. Trust in Jesus for the remission of sins like the Founding Fathers did.
*singing*
Where are the trolls?
There ought to be trolls.
Amazingly enough, I don’t think these poster have read any of the site’s other posts on the religion of the FF.
Jeremy,
I don’t think I’ve ever denied all of the Founders believed in God, read the Bible, and were influenced by “Judeo-Christian” values. However, the problem with your contention is that it only tells part of the story.
The key Founders were men of the Enlightenment who rejected the tenets of orthodox Christianity, and elevated man’s reason over revelation. Further, they believed, in principle, that non-Judeo-Christian religions taught the same truth as Christianity and were valid ways to God. And they tended to be imbibed in pagan-Greco-Roman imagery which is also featured on “the walls in the buildings.” And most importantly, they believed religious rights applied to all, whether one was a Christian or not.
The Founders drew from and synthesized a variety of ideological sources when writing the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist papers and otherwise arguing for our Founding movement. They included 1) Christian principles/the Bible; 2) Pagan classical Greco-Roman Republican-Democratic theory; 3) Common law/rights of Englishmen; and 4) Enlightenment/man’s reason/rights of man/. It was the final, though, Enlightenment rationality, which dominated and was the lens through which all of the other principles were to be viewed.
People generally didn’t call themselves ‘deists.’ It was usually an accusation made by the orthodox against certain of the non-orthodox, presumably satirizing the penchant of humanists and later Whigs to employ phrases like ‘The Deity,’ ‘Divine Providence,’ and ‘Nature’s God.’
The features alleged deists had in common were 1) reticence to public discussion of personal beliefs, 2) proclaimed abhorence of ’superstition’ (often vaguely defined but usually hinting at skepticism concerning revealed truths), 3) seeming indifference to theology (compared to orthodox contemporaries), 4) eccentric bible quoting and interpretation (compared to contemporaries) or religious statements not clearly derived from the bible, 5) the use of phrases like ‘Our Creator’ in writing, 6) emphasis on ethical and moral aspects of religion, and 7) a certain (presumably deliberate) ambiguity in statements about religion such that it’s not clear whether the writer is describing, critiquing, or exhorting.
I think it’s a mistake of modern writers to try to imagine ‘deism’ as a category in a belief-based schematic system.
James,
The quotation from JQA that begins “Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day….” I think is an accurate one, but this doesn’t mean his sentiments were right. After all, the Declaration of Independence doesn’t mention Christianity or Jesus. Moreover, its contents are not discernibly Christian. Indeed, one could argue that it is an anti-Christian document given that Romans 13, in no uncertain terms, forbids revolt.
The following, however, is a phony quotation, one of David Barton’s “unconfirmed.”
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” –President John Quincy Adams
It’s actually another author paraphrasing what he thought JQA meant in the first quotation you offered.
“THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY REFERS TO CHRISTIANITY, SINCE CHRISTIANITY COULD ONLY BECOME THE NATIONAL CHURCH(RELIGION)”
It might actually help your case if that’s what the First Amendment says. But it doesn’t. It uses the word “religion” without the qualifer “Christian.” And they didn’t have to word it that way. Stop reading things into the First Amendment that aren’t there. Moreover, if you read the ratification debates on Art. VI, you’d see that they knew the term “religion” meant things other than Christianity. Indeed, many folks were against Article VI precisely because they realized non-Christians would be able to be elected to federal office. But since Article VI and the Constitution were ultimately ratified, their view lost.
“All of these were in force after the Constitution was ratified, proving the law of nature is Yahweh, the God of Israel, because the men who ratified the Constitution were the same men who ratified the state constitutions.”
No, what those religious tests actually prove is whatever restrictions there were at the federal level, states retained the right to impose religious tests. The law of nature, by definition, refers to “reason.” And “Nature’s God,” as such, means God insofar as we can discover His existence and attributes from reason unassisted by revelation. If you actually look at Who the writers of the Declaration thought “Nature’s God” was, they believed He was:
1) Unitarian, not Trinitarian
2) Benevolent, not wrathful and jealous — thus those parts of scripture showing His irrational wrath and jealously were “fit” to be cut out, and
3) the God of us all. He was, in a sense Yahweh to the Jews, the Father to the Christians, Allah to Muslims, The Great Spirit to the Native Americans, etc. etc. But because He was unitarian in nature, He was not Jesus.
Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams all clearly believed this. And they were a majority of the drafting board of the Declaration with Jefferson as its author. These are facts not easily waved away with your hand.
And finally, my post today shows what you reproduced about James Wilson and PA’s religious test to be false.
After all, the Declaration of Independence doesn’t mention Christianity or Jesus>>
It was common knowledge the law of nature was Yahweh, the God of Israel, which is Jesus Christ. You do not have to believe it to be true.
Moreover, its contents are not discernibly Christian. Indeed, one could argue that it is an anti-Christian document given that Romans 13, in no uncertain terms, forbids revolt.>>
Once a govt violates the law of nature, it is not ordained of God.
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” –President John Quincy Adams
It’s actually another author paraphrasing what he thought JQA meant in the first quotation you offered.>>
You’re correct.
It might actually help your case if that’s what the First Amendment says. But it doesn’t. It uses the word “religion” without the qualifer “Christian.”>>
It does not have to be in there, religion is left to the states. You read the state constitutions right?
Moreover, if you read the ratification debates on Art. VI, you’d see that they knew the term “religion” meant things other than Christianity.>>
Let’s see it.
Indeed, many folks were against Article VI precisely because they realized non-Christians would be able to be elected to federal office>>
Let’s see the reference.
The law of nature, by definition, refers to “reason.” And “Nature’s God,” as such, means God insofar as we can discover His existence and attributes from reason unassisted by revelation.>>
You’re a classic guy. law of nature, separation of church and state, 1st amendment, religious tests, you’re wrong on all of them. Proven by the same men who ratified the 1st amendment, ratified the state constitutions. You believe the men forgot the true meaning of what they ratified a few months earlier.
If you actually look at Who the writers of the Declaration thought “Nature’s God” was, they believed He was:
2) Benevolent, not wrathful and jealous — thus those parts of scripture showing His irrational wrath and jealously were “fit” to be cut out>>
Did you think of that overnight? Like and eye for an eye? Which verses show his wrath and jealousy? Provide the direct reference that Madison, and Wilson believed that. I’ll wait.
1) Unitarian, not Trinitarian>>
No, You’re only deceiving yourself, which is keeping you from the truth in every topic we’ve discussed.
Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution
“I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.”
Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 272-273.
Allah to Muslims,>>
You do not even have a clue who el ilah(allah) is, either did the framer’s.
Regards
“It was common knowledge the law of nature was Yahweh, the God of Israel, which is Jesus Christ. You do not have to believe it to be true.”
Maybe many people in the nation at that time believed it, but not the men who drafted and authored the Declaration.
“Once a govt violates the law of nature, it is not ordained of God.”
Where does Paul say this in Romans 13? The ruler to whom he admonished Christians to believe was not some “godly” man, but the pagan psychopath Nero.
“It might actually help your case if that’s what the First Amendment says. But it doesn’t. It uses the word ‘religion’ without the qualifer ‘Christian.’”
“It does not have to be in there, religion is left to the states. You read the state constitutions right?”
I agree religion was left to the states. But that’s besides the point. Whatever rights or restrictions the First Amendment puts on the federal government, applied to “religion” not “the Christian religion.”
“Proven by the same men who ratified the 1st amendment, ratified the state constitutions. You believe the men forgot the true meaning of what they ratified a few months earlier.”
Actually, I believe one big reason why they approved a godless, secular document which imposed no religious test and granted rights universally to “religion,” not “the Christian religion,” at the federal level, was precisely because they could continue to do what they wanted at the state level.
“2) Benevolent, not wrathful and jealous — thus those parts of scripture showing His irrational wrath and jealously were ‘fit’ to be cut out….
“Did you think of that overnight? Like and eye for an eye? Which verses show his wrath and jealousy? Provide the direct reference that Madison, and Wilson believed that. I’ll wait.”
Would you like me to prove it with quotations from Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin, the men who actually wrote the Declaration.
“1) Unitarian, not Trinitarian
“No, You’re only deceiving yourself, which is keeping you from the truth in every topic we’ve discussed.”
Sherman may have been the only Trinitarian on the drafting committee of the Declaration. Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin were all theological unitarians. Do you doubt that?
See Adams letter to Jefferson dated Sept. 14, 1813 where he states the laws of nature prove nature’s God to be unitarian not trinitarian in his attributes. Moreover Adams elevated man’s reason so far over revelation he stated even if he were on Mt. Sinai with Moses, if God revealed the doctrine of the Trinity to him there, Adams still wouldn’t believe it because man’s reason proves 1+1+1 = 3, not 1.
http://www.fusmadison.org/sermons/2002/religiousfounders_mas_7-7-02.pdf
“We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or prophecies might frighten us out of our wits, might scare us to death, might induce us to lie, to say that we believe that two and two make five, but we should not believe it; we should know the contrary.
“Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it. The thunders and the lightnings and the earthquakes and the transcendent splendors and glories might have overwhelmed us with terror and amazement, but we could not have believed the doctrine.”
“The doctrine” they are referring to is the Trinity.
“Allah to Muslims
“You do not even have a clue who el ilah(allah) is, either did the framer’s [sic].”
[By the way, learn how to write plural nouns possessive. It's "framers'" or "framers's" not "framer's," which is singular.]
Tell it to John Adams:
“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.
Notice how Adams equates “religion” with Christianity, Judaism and Islam. As far as the ratification debates on Article VI, again, they are online. Maybe tomorrow I’ll do a post showing that the ratifiers knew the term “religious test” applied to all “religions” not just the Christian one. Indeed, they explicitly stated that by ratifying the Constitution they thereby assured non-Christian could be elected to public office. Moreover, the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin and Washington are replete with examples showing they believed the unalienable rights of conscience applied to all religions.
As far as my deceiving myself, I’m probaby to the right of the historical and legal academy on these issues, indeed I probably was to the right of the Supreme Court on these issues until O’Connor retired. And most of the scholarship I rely on has ironically come from conservative evangelicals and Catholics who understand that our key Founders weren’t orthodox Christian and didn’t intend to “found” America as a “Christian Nation.” The term “theistic rationlism,” was in fact coined by an evangelical who teaches at a conservative Christian college, whose categorization of our Founders I follow down the line.
If I may speculate as to why YOU are deceiving yourself, it seems, like many adherents to the “Christian Nation” fraud, you believe our Founding was divinely inspired by your God and that everything in our Constitution and Declaration must have come from Him, or have been “divinely inspired.” The Constitution and Declaration thus must be taken almost to the same level as the Bible.
Since the Christian religion predates America’s Founding by one thousand and some hundred odd years, nothing in it demands you believe this. Indeed, that’s why so many notable orthodox Christians reject the “Christian America” thesis. Because they’ve done their homework and don’t feel the need to believe in such a “pretty fiction,” as one of them termed it. Indeed, doesn’t the Bible say something about first seeking the kingdom of God.
In seeing these debates go down, I’ve seen “born again” Christian time and time again abuse and corrupt their religion (as many pro-revolutionary ministers did during the Founding era) importing wholly a-Biblical ideas into the Bible/Christianity just to try credit their religion with Founding ideas. For instance, the clever explaining away of Roman’s 13 (similar to the way pro-gay Christians try to explain away anti-homosexual proof texts) and endorsing the absurd idea that the Ancient Jews had a Republic.
The Mormons on the other hand…their religion does believe America and its Founding documents were divinely inspired; they do have a religious duty to reconcile everything about the Founding with their religion.
You do not have to believe it to be true.
I think this statement, like so many of Mr. Goswick’s, would be improved by adding a quick “neener neener neener” at the end.
Really, this isn’t arguing. It’s grandstanding. And it’s getting increasingly desperate if you ask me.
this isn’t arguing. It’s grandstanding. And it’s getting increasingly desperate if you ask me.>>
We’d appreciate your imput. It would be better if other people gave their imput on the issues.
Maybe many people in the nation at that time believed it, but not the men who drafted and authored the Declaration>.
All four men declared themselves christians, so they believed the God of the bible, not any other Gods.
Whatever rights or restrictions the First Amendment puts on the federal government, applied to “religion” not “the Christian religion.”>>
Then you believe the same men forgot the context of the First Amendment? No way. Only a particular denomination of Christianity could be the national or state religion, as the state constitutions prove.
Let Thomas Jefferson affirm this statement:
“the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly;”
Thomas Jefferson To Dr. Benjamin Rush Monticello, September 23, 1800
Jefferson says the delusion of the First Amendment is a sect of Christianity, not every religion.
Actually, I believe one big reason why they approved a godless, secular document which imposed no religious test and granted rights universally to “religion,” not “the Christian religion,”>>
Because belief in God was inherent in the oath, so the religious test is a farce.
at the federal level, was precisely because they could continue to do what they wanted at the state level.>>
Which they did not do as you believe, they believed only Christianity could be the established church of the state not other pagan religions.
Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin were all theological unitarians. Do you doubt that?>>
Yes. You’re missing the point, it doesn’t matter if they believed God existed in 10 persons, the point is, they believed the bible was the word of God. That they misinterpreted it is their fault.
Adams still wouldn’t believe it because man’s reason proves 1+1+1 = 3, not 1.>>
That’s only the trinity, Besides, all of this is irrelevant, as you are confusing the issue. They all called themselves christians, that they misinterpreted the scriptures, does not take away their claim of followers of the bible.
“We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God>>
Again, he called himself a Christian, so his denial of miracles is irrelevant.
“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.>>
This just proves my point as Adams was deceived and is paying the price for it.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Begotten Son.” John 3.
“‘How shall I bear a child,’ she [Mary] answered, ‘when I am a virgin…?’ ‘Such is the will of the Lord,’ he replied. ‘That is no difficult thing for Him…God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!…Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood…” (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)
He should have known right there, that they are different Gods. Adams was deceived and is in eternal punishment for denying the deity of Jesus Christ.
Moreover, the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin and Washington are replete with examples showing they believed the unalienable rights of conscience applied to all religions.>>
Of course, but the first amendment only refers to a particular denomination of Christianity as Jefferson claims.
key Founders weren’t orthodox Christian>>
Again?
The term “theistic rationlism,” was in fact coined by an evangelical who teaches at a conservative Christian college>>
I figured that since you cannot prove it from the words of the founding fathers.
If I may speculate as to why YOU are deceiving yourself, it seems, like many adherents to the “Christian Nation” fraud>>
Early supreme court decisions, along with the state constitutions refute your statement.
Since the framer’s called themselves Christians refutes your entire beliefs. They believed the bible was divine, it doesn’t matter which scriptures Jefferson and Adams rejected.
You won’t ever find a quote by Wilson or Madison affirming the miracles in the bible are false.
Regards.
[...] Reader James J. Goswick is turning out to be quite an amusing troll. Tsk tsk John Adams. Deny the Trinity, end up in Hell. Mr. Goswick writes: This just proves my point as Adams was deceived and is paying the price for it. [...]
James,
If you are going to quote Thomas Jefferson as authority for the Establishment Clause you should know that he stated the First Amendment erected a “wall of separation between Church and State,” which means much more than just the federal government being forbidden from establishing a Christian sect as the official religion of the United States.
I don’t see how the fact that Jefferson and Adams called themselves “Christian” proves anything for your side. Lincoln said that a dog’s tail is still a tail, regardless of whether you want to call it a 5th leg. They weren’t Christians; they were something else, which Gregg Frazer has termed “theistic rationalists.”
These are the following doctrines which the “Christian” Jefferson rejected. He lists them in this letter:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_short.html
“The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.”
If you are going to quote Thomas Jefferson as authority for the Establishment Clause you should know that he stated the First Amendment erected a “wall of separation between Church and State,”>>
Separation of church and state is as easy to prove as the first amendment.
They weren’t Christians; they were something else,>>
That’s your opinion. They all believed they were Christians.
which Gregg Frazer has termed “theistic rationalists.”>>
Hooray, for Gregg Frazer.
“The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.”>>
Poor guy, he still called himself a Christian. I wonder how he got so deceived.
Regards
James Gostwick writes:
Okay, so he called himself a Christian but WASN’T a Christian. You do realize that you’ve refuted one of your own arguments, don’t you?
I wonder how he got so deceived.
Okay, so he called himself a Christian but WASN’T a Christian. You do realize that you’ve refuted one of your own arguments, don’t you?>>
No. It’s the same as you believing you’re eight feet tall. You’re deceived.
James Gostwick writes:
Deception is beside the point. Your argument depends upon it being the case that they WERE Christians (as the term is currently defined), not merely that they called themselves Christians. By labeling Jefferson a “non-Christian”, you’ve refuted the basis for your own argument.
If, on the other hand, you’re claiming that Jefferson et al meant for this to be a “christian” nation by their definition of “Christian” (i.e., their unfortunate “deception”), then separation of church and state, Enlightenment values, secularism, and everything else bound up in this “deception” are all part and parcel of what it means to be a “Christian” nation and your argument still fails.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too…
Your argument depends upon it being the case that they WERE Christians (as the term is currently defined), not merely that they called themselves Christians.>>
I disagree, it should only matter that they were deceived, because ultimately, the standard of Christianity proves they were not true christians. They would all reject someone calling them a theistic rationalist, they would say no, “I am a Christian” The truth lies in the person of the system and His Word, not the claims of it’s inherents.
separation of church and state, Enlightenment values, secularism, and everything else bound up in this “deception” are all part and parcel of what it means to be a “Christian” nation and your argument still fails.>>
My argument doesn’t fail as the deception is their own fault, not the other 250 framer’s, as well as Jefferson did not believe in separation of church and state, and Madison was a hypocrite by violating his own beliefs.
Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.
1 Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789).
In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 1325, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: Gales & Seaton 1853) (“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813.”)
Throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the “Detached Memoranda,” and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is difficult to argue that it reflects the Founders’ intent toward religion.
In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.”
When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building.
Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), Sixth Congress, p. 797, December 4, 1800.
We know for sure Jefferson never affirmed separation of church and state, but only a national Christian denomination, or two, becoming the national church. Jefferson supported public religious expression.
President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.
·Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services;
·Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government”;
·Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto;
·While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.”
Furthermore, Jefferson would especially disagree with those who believe that public prayers should be non-sectarian and omit specific references to Jesus. Jefferson believed that every individual should pray according to his own beliefs. As Jefferson explained:
[The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support. (emphasis added)
Critics, therefore, would be particularly troubled by President Jefferson’s words that:
No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.
Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.
“They would all reject someone calling them a theistic rationalist, they would say no, ‘I am a Christian’ The truth lies in the person of the system and His Word, not the claims of it’s inherents.”
No they wouldn’t: 1) they believed themselves to be “theists,” and 2) they embraced “rationalism” as the penultimate standard for evaluating truth. In fact, Jefferson liked the label “rational Christianity,” which by its very nature was unitarian not trinitarian. And Jefferson called himself a “unitarian” more so than a “Christian.” Adams’ term for himself was “liberal unitarian Christian.” The point that Drs. Gregg Frazer, Gary Scott Smith, myself, and others make is, since their system rejected all of the tenets of orthodox Christianity, what Jefferson and Adams referred to as “rational Christianity,” or “liberal unitarian Christianity,” was not Christianity at all.
“No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”
Reverend Allen’s account is apocryphal, as Monticello’s official website notes.
http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html
Jonathan Rowe writes:
Indeed. And therein lies the straw that breaks the back of Mr. Goswick’s thesis: Jeffersonian/Adamsian/Madisonian “christianity” isn’t Christianity. Therefore, any claims that this is a Christian nation based upon said Founder’s claims of being “christian” are, in reality, non sequiturs.
No they wouldn’t: 1) they believed themselves to be “theists,” >>
Probably, but they used a different term.
In fact, Jefferson liked the label “rational Christianity,” which by its very nature was unitarian not trinitarian>>
Not universally so, the other framer’s and philosophers believed Christianity was rational and still supernatural. It seems Jefferson’s christianity was rational, when it was rational to others who believed in the trinity. How do you reconcile that? It has to go back to what the bible actually says. Only then, can we determine who is correct, and the bible makes it crystal clear what doctrine is correct.
And Jefferson called himself a “unitarian” more so than a “Christian.” Adams’ term for himself was “liberal unitarian Christian.”>>
Maybe so, but that isn’t the real issue.
Jeffersonian/Adamsian/Madisonian “christianity” isn’t Christianity>>
You haven’t presented any actual words of Madison rejecting the bible or even parts of it, so this statement cannot be made. His close pastor, friends and family say he was a Christian, as has already been noted.
Take this to a composition, or professor of word meanings? Let’s see if the experts believe they were just in error. They should have never called themselves christians, that would settle it. I’m sure I’m standing on solid ground, claiming Jefferson and Adams were deceived. If they didn’t claim they were Christians, I wouldn’t have any basis.
Therefore, any claims that this is a Christian nation based upon said Founder’s claims of being “christian” are, in reality, non sequiturs.>>
These are only statements of three key founders, while neglecting the other key Christians. The United States WAS not a christian nation based on what the framer’s said, but rather on the states establishing Christianity as the relgion of the states.
Regards
The United States WAS not a christian nation based on what the framer’s said, but rather on the states establishing Christianity as the relgion of the states.>>
I meant, the United States WAS a christian nation not based on what the framer’s said, but on the states establishing Christianity as the religion of the states.
Regards
Re Madison. I think you wrote this before:
“Rev. Balmaine, who was probably closer to him than anyone, and talked with him regarding spiritual issues rejects the theistic rationalist view.”
The problem is we haven’t seen the evidence that “Rev. Balmaine…was probably closer to him than anyone.”
“Having been often asked concerning his religious sentiments, I give the following , received from the Rev. Dr. Balmaine, who married his near relative, and by whom Mr. Madison was himself married…His political associations with those of infidel principles(Jefferson comes to mind)…the (memorial)…IT IS DRAWN UP ON THE SUPPOSITION OF THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY…attended public worship in his neighborhood, invited ministers of religion to his house, had family prayers on such occasions…”
He had ministers come over because his mother and wife were orthodox.
Bishop Meade right after continues, “though he did not kneel himself at prayers. Episcopal ministers often went there to see his aged and pious mother and administer the Holy Communion to her.”
David Holmes, in his book on the matter (also published by Oxford), notes that while his wife and mother were confirmed, James Madison never was. You need to be confirmed to be a communicant. He was never any more than a nominal Anglican.
“His minister-the Rev. Mr. Jones. and some of his neighbors openly expressed their conviction, that, from his conversation and bearing during the latter years of his life, he must be considered as receiving the Christian system to be divine.
Meade, Old Churches Vol II.”
Holmes states, “Meade’s testimony is the signle indication historians have that Madison returned to the orthodoxy of his childhood and college years.” Nothing in Madison’s writings show this.
Meade also stated (before he thought Madison returned to orthodoxy shortly before his death):
“I was never at Mr. Madison’s but once, and then our conversation took such a turn–though not designed on my part–as to call forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible.”
We also have George Tickor’s testimony:
“He talked of religious sects and parties and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.”
We also have Sarah Coles Stevenson, an orthodox Anglican, noting her shock at Madison’s professed liberal attitude towards keeping the Sabbath day, something that evidence shows Madison did quite infrequently.
Meade noted that though Madison flirted with orthodoxy during his college years, soon thereafter, he became more deistic and unitarian:
“His religious feeling, however, seems to have been short-lived. His political associations with those of infidel principles, of whom there were many in his day, if they did not actually change his creed, yet subjected him to the general suspicion of it….”
Meade does not dispute that all of the time during which Madison was involved in Founding the nation from 1776-1817 (when his Presidency ended) he was not an orthodox Christian, but something else (an adherent to “infidel principles”). And that something else is what we would call “theistic rationalism.”
Or as David Holmes put it:
“[T]he pattern of Madison’s religious associations and the comments of contemporaries clearly categorize the fourth president of the United States as a moderate Deist.”
“The Faiths of the Founding Fathers,” p. 97.
Holmes then goes on to cite Madison’s 1825 letter to Frederic Beasley which I showed you where Madison praises the Unitarian Samuel Clarke. I don’t see how anyone can read that letter and come off thinking these were the words of an orthodox Christian.
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_7_16.asp
The theistic rationalist categorization stands.
The problem is we haven’t seen the evidence that “Rev. Balmaine…was probably closer to him than anyone.”>>
Then check it out.
He had ministers come over because his mother and wife were orthodox.>>
It doesn’t say that. It says James Madison invited ministers of religion to his house, had family prayers on such occasions…”
and that Episcopal ministers often went there to see his aged and pious mother and administer the Holy Communion to her.”
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of patriot it should be our highest glory to add to the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.”
James Madison. The context is Christianity
I don’t see how anyone can read that letter and come off thinking these were the words of an orthodox Christian.>>
He was just a simple christian, not a orthodox theologian.
The theistic rationalist categorization stands.>>
It only stands in your mind, not in anyone else’s mind. At the end of his life Madison said Christianity was the best and purest religion to other Christians about every religion. That Madison was a hypocrite is common knowledge, and only someone with a personal agenda, want to distort the simple faith of James Madison.
Stick to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, that’s all you have. Speak to some english composition professors to understand the context of their writings.
in his speech on May 12, 1779, (Washington) claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are”;
on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian”;
and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that “without a humble imitation” of “the Divine Author of our blessed religion” we “can never hope to be a happy nation.”
The author of our blessed religion is Jesus Christ. Just like the rest of them, Washington thought he was a Christian.
If you could, check this reference, I can’t find it.
James Madison… wrote in the margin of his Bible, “Christ’s Divinity appears by St. John chapter XX, 2; ‘And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!’ Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts IV, 33.”
Regards
“The problem is we haven’t seen the evidence that “Rev. Balmaine…was probably closer to him than anyone.”>>
“Then check it out.”
You still haven’t offered evidence that Rev. Balmaine was Madison’s best friend.
“It doesn’t say that. It says James Madison invited ministers of religion to his house, had family prayers on such occasions…”
and that Episcopal ministers often went there to see his aged and pious mother and administer the Holy Communion to her.”
They were invited to Madison’s house because his wife and mother were orthodox. Madison was still never confirmed and didn’t take communion.
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of patriot it should be our highest glory to add to the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.”
“James Madison. The context is Christianity”
It would help your case if you were quoting Madison. You aren’t. You are quoting Washington.
“The theistic rationalist categorization stands.”
“It only stands in your mind, not in anyone else’s mind.”
Well it sure stands in the mind of the man who coined the term and so categorized Madison as a theistic rationalist — Dr. Gregg Frazer, an evangelical and professor at the The Master’s College. It also stands in the mind of Gary Scott Smith, another evangelical and chair of the history dept. at Grove City College, who endorses Frazer’s work. It also stands in the mind of David Holmes, a professor at William and Mary who wrote “The Faiths of the Founder Fathers,” and categorized Washington as a “moderate Deist.” I just watched a C-SPAN special on Montpelier and the boss of the place explicitly endorsed Holmes’ book for Madison’s religion.
The scholars are on my side not yours.
“At the end of his life Madison said Christianity was the best and purest religion to other Christians about every religion.”
And here is how James H. Hutson, historian from the library of Congress deals with such.
“This last assertion, however, sounds very much like the deistical maxim, frequently indulged by Jefferson, that the ‘pure’ religion of Jesus had been unconscionably corrupted by the apostle Paul and the early church fathers.”
http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html
As I have noted, this is completed in accord with the unitarian notion that Christianity is superior to other religions because of the superiority of Jesus’ moral teachings.
“Speak to some english composition professors to understand the context of their writings.”
I think I’ll actually continue to speak with the historians who have actually studied Madison’s words and the most notable of whom agree with my categorization not yours.
They were invited to Madison’s house because his wife and mother were orthodox.>>
They are two separate things.
You still haven’t offered evidence that Rev. Balmaine was Madison’s best friend.>>
Bishop Meade says he was close to Madison. He was practically kin, I think the evidence supports it.
Madison was still never confirmed and didn’t take communion.>>
It’s not proof but it could be a problem, if you had the evidence like for Jefferson.
As I have noted, this is completed in accord with the unitarian notion that Christianity is superior to other religions because of the superiority of Jesus’ moral teachings.>>
Common sense and 8 out of 10 people would believe its talking about other religions not within Christianity.
And here is how James H. Hutson, historian from the library of Congress deals with such.>>
Rev. Balmaine is a better witness.
Did you find any info on this quote? I can’t confirm it.
James Madison… wrote in the margin of his Bible, “Christ’s Divinity appears by St. John chapter XX, 2; ‘And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!’ Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts IV, 33.”
Regards
This is the link to the page in googlebooks where Bishop Meade talks of Madison’s creed.
http://books.google.com/books?id=M0oOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA99&dq=bishop+meade+churches+infidel+principles
He notes Rev. Balmaine married Madison, but I don’t see him stating that Balmaine assured him Madison was a lifelong Christian. I read this as Meade testifying that Madison 1) was a Christian during his college years, but 2) shortly after he returned became a deist/unitarian/theistic rationalist (whatever term you want to use), 3) remained so for all of the years he did his work Founding the Nation, but 4) may have converted to orthodox Christianity shortly before death.
Historian David Holmes notes that there is no other evidence in the historical record that Madison converted back to Christianity in old age other than Meade’s account here. He categorizes Madison as a “moderate Deist.”
This is the link to the page in googlebooks where Bishop Meade talks of Madison’s creed.
http://books.google.com/books?id=M0oOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA99&dq=bishop+meade+churches+infidel+principles
He notes Rev. Balmaine married Madison, but I don’t see him stating that Balmaine assured him Madison was a lifelong Christian. I read this as Meade testifying that Madison 1) was a Christian during his college years, but 2) shortly after he returned became a deist/unitarian/theistic rationalist (whatever term you want to use), 3) remained so for all of the years he did his work Founding the Nation, but 4) may have converted to orthodox Christianity shortly before death.>>
Based on this info, Balmaine was probably closer to him than anyone. He married him, and he married his close relative.
2) shortly after he returned became a deist/unitarian/theistic rationalist (whatever term you want to use), 3) remained so for all of the years he did his work Founding the Nation, but>>
That’s what you say, not what the text says. It says his memorial was on the suppostion that Christianity was the best religion. He didn’t distort the definition of best and purest religion.
Madison was a weak christian, all the way through, who probably became born again at the end of his life. The evidence for this statement is sufficient.
Regards.
Well you read it whatever way you want. I see Bishop Meade saying Madison was imbibed in “infidel principles” such that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible.
As James Hutson, an expert whom you apparently laud (because you’ve quoted from one of his books) noted, his best and purest religion quotation is consistent with a form of deism. And Professor David Holmes, one of the nation’s leading scholarly experts on the Founders & Religion, so categorizes Madison as a moderate Deist.
Therefore, my categorization of him as a “theistic rationalist” — or some kind of “deist” or “unitarian” (if you don’t like tr) stands.
James,
I have a book I think you should read on the matter. It’s written by Dr. Gary North, a paleoconservative fundamentalist Christian like you. The scholarship is meticulous.
After reading this, our dialogue may make more sense.
http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
Well you read it whatever way you want. I see Bishop Meade saying Madison was imbibed in “infidel principles” such that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible.>>
That’s not what it says, it says “his political associations with those of infidel principles if they did not change his creed, yet subjected him to the general suspicion of it” That is a far cry from you labeling him a theistic rationalist, give it up, it’s not possible.
As James Hutson, an expert whom you apparently laud (because you’ve quoted from one of his books) noted, his best and purest religion quotation is consistent with a form of deism. And Professor David Holmes, one of the nation’s leading scholarly experts on the Founders & Religion, so categorizes Madison as a moderate Deist.
Therefore, my categorization of him as a “theistic rationalist” — or some kind of “deist” or “unitarian” (if you don’t like tr) stands.>>
It doesn’t stand at all and never will. Rev. Balmaine is a better witness than an historian. No one’s buying your agenda.
It’s written by Dr. Gary North, a paleoconservative fundamentalist Christian like you.>>
If he believes that an historian is a better witness than a friend, he’s wrong as well.
Regards
The personal views of the founders regarding religion and its proper relationship to civil government are not the most natural and probable signs of the will of the legislators that made the Constitution, at time the Constitution was made, regarding the best legal relationship between religion and civil government. The most natural and probable signs of intent of the founders are the words of the Constitution.
The founders intended a national government whose powers were limited to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. They granted that government no jurisdiction, authority or power whatsoever over religion and forbid a religious test. As James Madison put it, at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, in response to the charge that religion was not guarded against the general power of the national government, “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation.”
If separation of church and state means no civil authority over religion, a government without even a shadow of a right to claim jurisdiction, whether coercive or merely recommendatory, over the people’s religion, is a government founded on separation of church and state.
Fred Slice