Links to Post on Rational Islam
Jonathan Rowe on May 25th 2007
I want to thank everyone for the links and discussion to my post on enlightening Christianity and Islam. First Ed; then Chris Ho-Stuart, then PZ Meyers; and finally Andrew Sullivan. Also see Jason’s and others.
PZ notes something that should be stressed: Even though the US, revolutionary for its time, disestablished religion at the national level when founded, other liberal democracies retained their established Churches which likewise enlightened. Indeed, Western Europe and its established Christian Churches became even more liberal and secular. He writes:
I’ll add, though, that other countries did set up state religions, and then seem to have modified that institution into similarly benign forms that have had a more lasting effect. The unofficial position of America’s founding fathers may have been wonderfully positive in the beginning, but we can see now that they flopped mightily at building enduring institutions that would maintain any kind of religious rationalism. I tend to think that if they had, for instance, declared Unitarianism the official US religion (with the same strong statements that religion was not to be a prerequisite for holding office, etc., and that it was not a declaration of exclusivity) we’d be better off today. There’d at least be one officially sanctioned brake on the excesses of our wildly proliferating looney-tunes churches.
Based on my meticulous study of Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, they probably desired Unitarianism as the “official” religion of the US. The same thing, however, that prevented the Founders from abolishing slavery in the original Constitution, prevented this desire — the states would never have ratified the Constitution were this to be done. Though, the Founders may have secretly intended to “de-facto” establish unitarianism or “theistic rationalism” as the US’s Founding creed.
The US Constitution makes no mention of God, Christ, or Christianity and only recognizes “religion” in terms of granting it rights (free exercise) and imposing restrictions (i.e., no establishment or religious tests) which ultimately relate to securing the unalienable rights of conscience. If any kind of creed can be gleaned from the US Constitution, it is latitudinarianism. Arguably though, no creed can be gleaned at all.
While we have a “godless” Constitution, based on other founding documents, (the Declaration et al.) and the public supplications and privately recorded beliefs of our key Founding Fathers, they did believe America to be a nation “under God.” However, as I’ve noted many times, such conception of a “civil religion” or “public creed” for the United States isn’t, or arguably isn’t Christianity, but a form of theological unitarianism which Dr. Gregg Frazer has dubbed “theistic rationalism.”
The responses which atheists (who don’t like any conception of God), or conservative Christians (who don’t care for “unitarianism”) can invoke is that we aren’t governed by the secret intentions of our Founding Fathers but the original public meaning of the text of the Constitution. And the Constitution a) is Godless (something atheists will point out), and b) allowed the states to establish and promote Christianity over other world religions or non-belief (something conservative Christians will point out).
Still, ideas have consequences. The fact that America is a religiously pluralistic nation which still favors religious oaths in courts of law but guarantees its citizens the right to use “any religious text, not just the Bible,” directly traces back to our Founding Fathers’ widely latitudinarian religious ideals.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
they flopped mightily at building enduring institutions that would maintain any kind of religious rationalism>>
The framer’s were not theistic rationalists, they were Christians, proven by the state constitutions. They were a mirror image of the population.
Based on my meticulous study of Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, they probably desired Unitarianism as the “official” religion of the US.>>
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 general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were….the general principles of christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.
His general principles were not the correct general principles of the Apostles and early church fathers.
The US Constitution makes no mention of God, Christ, or Christianity>>
Because the Constitution is prohibited from interfering with religion.
isn’t Christianity, but a form of theological unitarianism>>
Out of the two hundred or so framer’s, only a couple, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington, Story, Jay, Dearborn, Allen, Lee, etc. were considered Unitarians, only because of their own misunderstanding of the bible, which Adams, Story, and Jay believed to be the word of God.
Regards.
Speaking for myself, I am motivated less by the constitution being godless, or by what the states did in the early 19th century, or to counter attempts by some religionists to favor more establishment of religion (as was suggested in another post by Jon), than by the merit of the general principle of government non-establishment. A benefit of government non-establishment is that it doesn’t matter so much what the religious demographics of the citizens are because non-establishment respects equallity before the law for all citizens of all beliefs. I disagree with the claim that the citizens of some states are more secular because they have establishments of religions, but even if that is true it doesn’t make much difference to the legal merit of government non-establishment. The trend for establishments of religion in those states where the citizens are increasingly less religious appears to be on the direction of those establishments of religion gradually becoming more inclusive and/or being dismantled. But again, the principle of non-establishment does not disfavor religious beliefs (except to the extent that the religious belief is interpreted as requiring or preferring establishment of religion) so the religious demographic trends of the citizens shouldn’t matter. As the religious demographics change the government traditions and laws don’t become anachronistic when there is non-establishment.
Thanks for these posts.
I think it’s a mistake to view the ‘Founding Fathers’ as desiring any particular state religion. Disestablishment was partly intended to increase the number of sects so that no group of clerics would maintain majority control, and theology would be reduced to the realm of private opinion (where they thought it belonged). Divide and conquer, in other words.
They were heirs to a political and philosophical tradition that both changed opinions by how they defined things (as your last post ably described) but also created and exploited rivalries–church vs king, nobles vs king, nobles vs tradesmen, etc.
This is something we can also consider. Why, for instance, is the Catholic Church treated more respectfully by the media and politicians than Evangelical Protestants? Is there some way to get the Evangelicals to see the Catholics as responsible for this rather than liberals? Why have GOP admins put 4 Catholics on the Supreme Court and 0 Evangelicals–even tho’ Evangelicals are more loyal in voting Republican? We must’nt claim that secular liberals will do anything for Evangelicals; we won’t. But we can be impartial arbiters in a battle that they should be having with the Roman Catholic Church that is ultimately their real enemy–and the real cause of the moral relativity they lament. And we can express sympathy for the ‘discrimination’ Evangelicals endure at the hands of the Republican party, Wall Street crowd, and Roman Catholic Church.
Or not. My point is, this is the sort of hardball practiced by the U.S. Founders. I’m not sure we really should go there, but we should understand that we wouldn’t have any choice if our philosophic ancestors hadn’t gone there.
Actually, Catholics (and some mainstream Protestants) are the Christians most willing to speak the lingua franca of American politics, which is to say reason and philosophy.
It is the choice of (many) evangelicals that faith and scripture are the alpha and omega of Christianity. Which is fine, theologically, but renders them mute in the court of public debate, since faith and scripture cannot be used to prove themselves.
Although some try.
I just want to clarify that when I spoke of “states” in my previous post that was as a synonym for “nations”.
For every country with establishment of religion whose citizens tend to be non-religious there is at least one other country with establishment of religion whose citizens tend to be religious. Conversely, countries like Australia and New Zealand have freedom of religion and low religious adherence. Putting aside the debatable cause and effect assumption and factual accuracy of this citizens are less religious in countries with establishments of religion argument, people who oppose establishment of other people’s religions don’t consider as very compelling the counter-argument that government establishments of those other religions is good because the citizens of nations where there are establishments of those other religions are less religious. The reason for this is simple. Government establishments of the majority’s religious beliefs are, in and of itself, discriminatory and unfair to the minority of citizens who have competing beliefs.
Furthermore, government establishment of theism is just as unfair to nontheists as establishments of some religious denominations are to people who identify with competing religious denominations. Whatever the reasons people have for favoring nonestablishment of particular denominations or of manifestations of “generic” forms of Protestantism or Christianity or Islam or Hinduism, etc., those same reasons also apply for favoring nonestablishment of theism. Its not like there is a lack of prejudice or discriminatory attitudes against atheists in the U.S.. How many people think that atheists cannot be the best kind of citizen? How many people think that atheists shouldn’t be employed in various occupations because they are untrustworthy? The polls indicate these numbers are high. Is it unreasonable to point out that the U.S. motto and monotheistic pledge of allegiance both support such prejudicial attitudes?
I also disagree that secularist nonestablishment of theism advocacy is the extreme mirror image the religious right’s establishment of Christianity advocacy and that the middle establishment of monotheism status quo advocacy is better. Its true that nonestablishment of monotheism is unpopular, but government establishments are unjust and as such supporting establishment of monotheism isn’t the better approach. Government establishment of religion analogizes (inexactly, of course) with government favoring one political party over other competing political parties or favoring some businesses over competing businesses. They are all misapplications of government authority. Competition between religious beliefs and disbeliefs, political parties, and commercial businesses is a realm where citizens make the choices and where good government avoids taking sides. Atheists will publically express their views and compete with contrary beliefs and they are entitled to do so without government expressing favoritism for theism.
Sure, why not? But there is a difference between asserting atheism and asserting anti-theism, BTW.
Your uses of “fair” and “just” seem predicated on atheism being the default position. There is little or nothing in the Founding to support that position. They used congress and the Supreme Court building for religious (albeit non-sectarian) services, fer crissakes.
Lets be clear that all religious beliefs are in some sense “anti” the competing religious beliefs. Catholicism is anti-Protestant and anti-Jewish, monothism is anti-atheism, etc. People used to argue, and some probably still do, that people who profess the incorrect religious denomination are therefore less moral and more untrustworthy. As for myself, I think that everyone should adopt the beliefs that they are most comfortable with and that this should occur in a context where we are exposed to all of the competing beliefs. This applies to religious beliefs just as much as to all other opinions. You don’t have to be anti other beliefs to prefer government neutrality because that helps to ensure a level playing field. Of course, Jon is correct that illiberal religious beliefs can and do conflict with liberal democracy and thus liberal democracy should prefer liberal religious beliefs over illiberal religious beliefs but atheism is not an illiberal religious belief so I don’t see how that becomes an argument for establishment of monotheism or against nonestablishment of monotheism.
The argument for nonestablishment of theism is predicated only on the notion that ALL beliefs have equal standing before the law. It is NOT anti-theist to advocate nonestablishment of monotheism just like it is NOT anti-atheist to advocate nonestablishment of atheism. I object to China’s establishment of atheism just as strongly as I object to the United State’s establishment of monotheism.
I will give you an example of what can be interpreted as Founders support for non-establishment of monotheism in the first law passed by the first Congress. The constitution gave Congress the authority to specify the oath of government office. One of the first actions of Congress was to swear the elected Congresspeople into office. So, an ad-hoc oath of office that included two references to God was administered. They also assign the task of creating an oath law to a committee. The end result was a simple, single sentence oath of office with no reference to any gods that was then administered to all of Congress. When the same Congress passed another law to establish an oath of office for the judiciary, the oath referenced god but the law specified that the god reference was optional. Compare that with today’s oath laws where the courts have to intervene to declare the god references optional because the laws as written don’t specify it is optional.
James,
I’ve dealt with that quotation from Adams many times. If you read the rest of the letter and understand the context, you’ll see it supports the theistic rationalist theory of our nation’s founding, not the “Christian Nation,” idea.
Adams further explicates those “general principles.”
“Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.”
Finding “general principles of Christianity” in the teachings of Enlightenment philosophers, like Locke, Newton? Perhaps. But also in the works of French philosophes, Rousseau, and Voltaire, and the atheist Hume?
Indeed, Adams also said that “Deists and Atheists, and Protestants who believe nothing” were believers in these “general principles.” If theistic rationalism is a “misunderstanding” of Christianity, then the ideals which built the Declaration, Constitution and Federalist Papers stem from Christianity, misunderstood.
As far as the Founders being a “mirror image” of the population at large, the list that you’ve conceded as non-Christians — Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington, Story, Jay, Dearborn, Allen, Lee, etc. — includes more than just a “few” people but some of the most important Founders in the nation.
You err when you conclude unless we can show a Founder explicitly denying orthodox Christianity that automatically puts him in the “born-again” Christian box. Almost all of the Founders on the above list were formally/nominally associated with a Christian Church which professed orthodoxy, and that’s really all that can be said of all of the signers of the Declaration/delegates to the Constitution. Truth is, we really don’t know the breakdown of who is a “real” Christian in the orthodox Trinitarian sense, and who leaned towards deism or unitarianism.
(And, I might add, if I understand the Bible correctly, it says that only relatively few people will be true believers, and supports the notion that a majority of folks in any given or most Christian Churches are not “real Christians,” but something else.)
Most of the Founders have not been subject to a meticulous examination of their religious beliefs. And even for those who have, scholars seriously dispute how to properly categorize. I stand by my categorization of James Madison as a theistic rationalist, and later will show that Wilson, Hamilton, and G. Morris, likewise were. All you’ve really shown, with Madison, is that there are some gaps, that he didn’t leave the “smoking gun” quotations that Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson left, for a definite categorization. Well, there is certainly not the definite evidence for his trinitarian orthodoxy either. And neither is that evidence there for Hamilton (until the end of his life), G. Morris, or Wilson.
Jonathan & James,
We know that three of the nation’s first six presidents were Unitarians: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams.
By the standards of today’s evangelicals, none of the three qualifies as a Christian. For evangelicals who today say that ours was a Christian nation at its founding also generally insist that no one is a Christian who does not accept the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity.
Applying the evangelicals’ creedal test, none of our Unitarian presidents was a Christian — not John Adams, not Thomas Jefferson, not John Quincy Adams, not Millard Fillmore, and not William Howard Taft.
If George Washington and James Madison were Deists, then I guess that by applying the modern evangelicals’ standards, we would have to conclude that five of our nation’s first six presidents were not Christians.
So much, then, for the Trinitarian evangelicals’ insistance that ours was a Christian nation at its founding. Applying their own Trinitarian test, it clearly was not.
Which is not to say that the evangelicals’ Trinitiarian test of Christian faith is a valid one. Indeed, I believe it is fundamentally flawed.
Eric Alan Isaacson
Member, First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego
There are two uses of “Christian” flying about—the theological one, and the “latitudarian” one at the Founding. For Mr. Isaacson, they are one in the same, which is OK for the declared purposes of discussion here. This “Trinitarian” riff is overblown here. I agree with those who object to any “Christian Nation” formulation; however, “Judeo-Christian” is pretty accurate, and obviates the Trinity question. You got yer One Providential God and you got yr Bible, which even if corrupted, was held by even most of the skeptical to have been some level of direct revelation to man.
And we can also say that had the federal government attempted to override Judeo-Christian sensibilities, it would not have been tolerated. Pluralism is one thing, tyranny is another. It’s wise that our civil religion encourages a certain amount of myopia when it comes to religious doctrine, but we cannot accept willful blindness.
The Founders agreed there was a natural law, and some sort of Lawgiver, although the details are very foggy. That was enough common ground to form a nation. But in the current crisis, this agreement has been scrapped.
Perhaps it should be, but support for that proposition is not to be gleaned from the Founding. For Mr. E. Atheist, the contemporary anti-theism of, say, Richard Dawkins is decidedly illiberal, and completely inappropriate in the context of the Founding: Government buildings were used for religious services. This fact cannot be elided, and I suspect I’ll bring it up again if it is again glossed over.
No one can, and no one has to, vouch for everything every atheist has ever uttered or written to defend the contention that atheism is no more an illiberal religious belief incompatable with liberal democracy than is theism anymore than anyone can, or has to, vouch for everything every theist has ever uttered or written to defend the contentiont that theism is compatable with liberal democracy. Atheism and theism are just the contrary beliefs that there are no gods and that there is a god. Thats all it is. So of course both theism and atheism are compatable with liberal democracy and its just silly to claim otherwise. Having said that, I want to add that I don’t agree that Dawkins more controversial opinions, including his criticism of the religious indoctrination of children and his opinions about the ethics of certain scientific endeavors, are incomptable with liberal democracy.
Having religious services during non-working hours for the general public in a government building (at that time when there were few non-government, non-residential buildings in DC) without charge is a nonestablishment violation if similiar free public usage of that building is denied to any other partisan group. If that was not the standard of the late 18th or early 19th century then that doesn’t change the fact that it is the legal standard of today. Does anyone know for how long that practice continued in D.C.? At some point it stopped and it would be interesting to know when it stopped. Some people want to freeze the legal standard to the practices of the late 18th and early 19th centuries and other people, including myself, don’t. Nevertheless, to satisify those who appear to think hewing to the standards of the early 18th century is important, as I said in the previous post, the first law of the first Congress was a single sentence godless oath of office that Congress then administered to themselves similiar to the constitutionally specified godless presidential oath of office, and this remained the oath of office for the Congress until after the Civil War while the judicial oath of office law clearly stated that referencing god in the oath was optional.
Thanks Eric. I did a post a while back on JQAdams and found that he was raised to be a Unitarian like his father but seemed to switch back and forth between Unitarianism and Calvinism for his adult life. He may have died a Unitarian. Perhaps you can shed some light?
Washington’s and Madison’s “Deism” was probably closer to Adams’ and Jefferson’s “Unitarianism,” as M&W both, like J&A, believed in a warm active providence, not a cold distant watchmaker. David Holmes uses the term “Christian-Deist” to describe such; but that’s really the same thing as the Unitarianism of Jefferson and Adams, even though J&A were more explicitly on record embracing the label “Unitarian.” Dr. Gregg Frazer groups them all under the rubric of “theistic rationalism,” which he defines as sort of a mean between strict deism and orthodox Christianity, with rationalism as the trumping element. It’s really the same thing as the unitarian-universalism of the Founding era (indeed, theological unitarianism, universalism, and Arminianism are elements of the theistic rationalist creed). However, if we call those Founders “unitarian-universalists,” that might confuse people into thinking they were like the present-day uus, of which church you are a member. Those movements were different creatures back then.
Tolerance of intolerance is self-defeating. Since most religions are intolerant of other religions, or non-religious individuals, their intolerance cannot be tolerated. Ergo: Tolerance. Ergo: No establishment.
This simple logical argument undergrids what I think was the Founder’s compromise.
But Tom alludes to an important point, which consumes Lawrence Cahoone’s “Civil Society.” The liberal principle of “neutrality” is explicitly falsely held, and cannot be held. To accept a pluralistic social order, certain assumptions have to be either presumed, operative, or mandated, however minimalist. If a certain Judeo-Christian ethos had not been subsumed, however detached from its orthodox berths, those tentative “associations” could not have provided the “groundwork” upon which the Founders could find any consensus.
Some of them may have yearned to go farther in one direction or another, but ultimately, that they found consensus, had to compromise on slavery, is evidence of a rather homogeneous set of minimalist social values being presumed. In this limited sense, Judeo-Christian traditions played an enormous role in our founding by providing the “groundwork,” not the “framework.” That distinction is what is lost in these religious debates. Had radical Muslim, or today’s Evangelical, values been the “groundwork,” we’d have had a different Constitution.
Still, as important as this diffused ethos or “groundwork” allowed the “framework” come into being, it was ultimately the Spirit of the Times, the Age of Enlightenment, that built the framework.
Which is why, employing the same Spirit of the Times but not the same groundwork, the French revolution looked so different from the American one.
Free speech doesn’t exempt all speech from being criminal. Free exercise doesn’t exempt all religious practices from being criminal. Etc. Does that mean free speech and free exercise are falsely held and cannot be held? Of course not. All it means is that there are context sensitive responsibilities and that in some contexts some of those responsibilities will trump those civil rights. Or to put this another way, different principles can and do conflict with each other and common sense dictates that consequently any given principle is not absolute, instead it is context sensitive. Its the same way with government neutrality. As a legal goal government neutrality is as achievable as free speech and free exercise, which means its not perfectly achievable, but no civil right is, so that isn’t a fatal flaw, like some people incorrectly like to claim.
The French revolted against other French residents instead of overseas foreigners who sailed away to another continent when defeated. Civil wars tend to be nastier and more bloody.
The French Revolution was a bit more complicated than mere civil war. See Burke, Edmund. (Joseph Priestley was a supporter of it. Coincidence? I think not!)
Your defense of “neutrality” as freedom is indistinguishable from relativism if not nihilism. You take order and societal cohesion for granted, and no doubt would have made a good Jacobin yourself. Cheers.
When you oversimplify the reasons for the French revolution being bloody that is OK, but when I respond with a competing oversimplification then suddenly the oversimplification becomes a noteworthy problem.
Free speech and free exercise are limits on government authority, which is a characteristic that they share with nonestablishment, and on that grounds they can be grouped together. But of course, individuals practice free speech and free exercise but individuals don’t practice nonestablishment. I don’t think my argument was denying that difference or is somehow defeated by that difference. The same argument works just as well by comparing nonestablishment with equal protection before the laws. My argument is that it is a universal property of civil rights that they can and do conflict in certain contexts and therefore compromises sometimes are required. We can’t have 100% equal protection before the laws, its literally impossible, but that doesn’t mean equal protection before the laws is falsely held and cannot be held. I don’t know where you are finding nihilism, let alone a defense of the excessive violence of the French revolution, in my commentary. You are ignorantly throwing derogatory adjectives at me personally instead of engaging my arguments.
The reasons the American and French revolutions were so different (per Burke) are quite germane to the discussion and this blog’s emphasis on the prevailing winds at the Founding, for the reasons Mr. Species outlines. It’s not about the blood.
In fact, I wasn’t contemplating the bloodiness of the French revolution at all, just their attempt to reinvent man, his nature, and his history from scratch. The violence that followed was a predictable result, but that is all.
What I’m saying (and I believe Mr. Species agrees: Tocqueville certainly does) is that ethos is the groundwork upon which the fashioning of a society rests. I repeat, demanding “neutrality” ignores that proposition. I do not see how it differs from relativism, or how it is synonymous with pluralism as Mr. Species outlines it and the Founders understood it.
Now, it may be that you can withdraw the groundwork of a shared founding ethos and still have a functioning society. Perhaps a non-foundational understanding of “rights” is workable. Me, I doubt it, but that is a different discussion.
If you claim to find your ethical guidance in religion then thats your personal accomplishment, its not something that government is in a position to claim for us on our behalf. Government establishment of monotheism just isn’t going to succeed in converting any atheists or polytheists to your preferred monotheistic religious beliefs. Keep in mind that monotheistic citizens don’t need government establishment of monotheism to be monotheistic, government neutrality doesn’t take monotheism away from anyone.
I have always found my ethical guidance from within myself, never from divine command or divine revelation. And I sincerely doubt that most people, including those who sincerely claim biblical or other religious sources for their ethical conduct, are actually all that different from atheists in this regard since as a practical matter few people admit to practicing everything that the thousands year old bible and other religious sources permit or require since some of that isn’t even legal anymore. Given how many different interpretations there are of what god requires or permits, even among people who claim to share the same holy texts, its far from clear that there is a common ethos from religious sources as you seem to be asserting. You can find arguments regarding ethics from an atheistic point of view on the internet, such as infidels.org, if you are interested.
We derive our definition of rights from our evolving experience of injustice. Our rights are prophylactics against wrongs. There is no god involved here at all, its all human created. The god based “rights”, such as the divine right of Kings to rule unilaterally, are generally not what I consider to be genuine rights.
You’re having that other discussion anyway, and BTW, I’m not speaking of the divine right of kings, and neither is anyone else.
I’m contemplating George Washington: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
This is not how wonderful and moral you are without the help of any God. I’m sure you are. It’s about the foundations, the groundwork if you will, of our society.
“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
The foundation. There’s a pattern here. Which is why many atheists who are sincere friends of the republic are content to not cross the line into anti-theism, which is a whole ‘nother bag of bananas.
Government nonestablishment of monotheism is no more a challange or threat to monotheism, as you are claiming, than government nonestablishment of Christianity (or other religions) is a challange or threat to Christianity. You assert that government nonestablishment of monotheism is a goal of anti-theism, but that is bogus. Government nonestablishment of monotheism is a goal that can be endorsed by monotheists without self-contradiction. To elaborate on this I have some questions for you:
Why is it that establishment of monotheism is necessary, in your view, to maintain morality, yet establishment of Christianity is not? After all, there are lots of beliefs about who god is and what god wants that are incompatable with Christianity. Without a religion to define god, god could be any god anyone can imagine, and what good is a god who doesn’t punish immoral people in an after life for their immoral behavior here on earth?
Good question. Ask George Washington, or failing that, the Universalists. There is at least one hanging about here.
You assert that government nonestablishment of monotheism is a goal of anti-theism, but that is bogus.
Let’s get one thing straight historically—it’s disestablishment. But the floor is yours. I’ve had my say, and so has Washington. Cheers.
Clearly you are someone who understands that once we go down that path of viewing religion as an instrument of the state for anchoring morality that has implications that go beyond a generic government establishment of “ceremonial deism”, because that just doesn’t cut it. So we agree about something.
Disestablishment is more accurate here.
Oh, it cuts it, and bigtime. Jacobinism doesn’t. It’s not about “ceremony” atall atall. It’s essential.
But at least we’re speaking somewhat the same language now. Your attempt to exercize your “rights,” which are not foundational—in fact, they are anti-foundational—is sincerely unfriendly to the republic you purport to love. Enlightened atheists know better.
It’s not all about you, which even the great skeptic and sybarite Thomas Jefferson acknowledged when he himself attended those religious services in government buildings. You could look it up.
Me, I don’t care what you believe or don’t. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. But if and when you start undermining the foundation of our republic as limned by G. Washington hisownself, we got a problem, you & I. Word.
You assert that establishment of monotheism is essential for morality, but you refer me to George Washington and the Unitarians for an explanation. When George Washington was president the Congressional oath of office and national motto were godless and there was no monotheistic pledge of allegiance.
I said Universalist, as in everybody goes to heaven.
And G. Washington’s words are beyond our poor power to add or detract. It is possible to ignore them, I suppose, as you have proved.
Which is fine, theologically, but renders them mute in the court of public debate, since faith and scripture cannot be used to prove themselves.>>
What about fulfilled prophecy?
The reason for this is simple. Government establishments of the majority’s religious beliefs are, in and of itself, discriminatory and unfair to the minority of citizens who have competing beliefs>>
It isn’t discriminatory, because their freedom of conscience hasn’t been prohibited.
“Religion is left to the states(people)” Thomas Jefferson
“Our Constitution is based on the will of the majority shall prevail.”
George Washington
How many people think that atheists cannot be the best kind of citizen?>>
Ask the framer’s.
If theistic rationalism is a “misunderstanding” of Christianity, then the ideals which built the Declaration, Constitution and Federalist Papers stem from Christianity, misunderstood.>>
Not at all, Adams believed the bible was divine, end of story. He wrongly adduced from the bible that Jesus was not God, that is his misinterpretation, and he is dealing with the consequences right now, as is Jefferson, and maybe Jay.
Truth is, we really don’t know the breakdown of who is a “real” Christian in the orthodox Trinitarian sense, and who leaned towards deism or unitarianism.>.
Just check their writings, it’s that simple.
Most of the Founders have not been subject to a meticulous examination of their religious beliefs.>>
Incorrect statement, as most were heads of bible societies, meaning they were church officers(leaders) they all grew up studying the bible.
Well, there is certainly not the definite evidence for his trinitarian orthodoxy either.>>
Without his own words, his pastor and neighbors who he lived with and talked with daily, provide the best evidence.
And neither is that evidence there for Hamilton (until the end of his life), G. Morris, or Wilson.>>
Incorrect on Hamilton and Wilson both believed the bible was divine. Hamilton was talking about the same law blackstone is talking about, from the bible as early as 1775.
[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. [212] Alexander Hamilton, signer of the constitution
Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 87 (Harold C. Syrett, ed., 1961) (February 23, 1775), quoting 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England 41 (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771).
“NO HUMAN LAW IS OF ANY VALIDITY, IF CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF GOD.” 1 Blackstone Comm. 40
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
Wilson also believed the bible was divine, whether he believed it correctly, is his problem. ?
“We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is ― to discover the will of God”
The works of Wilson, 1804
We know that three of the nation’s first six presidents were Unitarians: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams.>>
Not Q. Adams. Remember Jefferson and Adams just understood the bible incorrectly, they both believed it was divine.
“But neither this, nor any other argument that I ever heard, can satisfy my judgment that the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ is not countenanced by the New Testament. As little can I say that it is clearly revealed. It is often obscurely intimated; sometimes directly, and sometimes indirectly, asserted; but left on the whole, in a debatable state, never to be either demonstrated or refuted till another revelation shall clear it up.”
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnquincyadams.html
So much, then, for the Trinitarian evangelicals’ insistance that ours was a Christian nation at its founding.>>
Religion is left to the states.
Actually James, John Adams held that man’s reason was supreme. He believed some of the Bible was the revealed word of God, but some wasn’t. The Bible, to him, contained “errors” and “amendments.”
There are also many factual errors in your last post. For instance most of the Founding Fathers, I assure you, were not “heads of bible societies, meaning they were church officers(leaders) they all grew up studying the bible.”
Further, James Wilson voted against PA’s Constitution, so he had nothing to do with its religious test. Ben Franklin actually helped to pen that document but was against its religious test in part because he couldn’t pass it. As acting governor, he helped to have it removed.
Franklin’s letters to Benjamin Rush on the matter show that both of them believed such religious test violated the Declaration of Independence and its guarantee of natural rights.
I’ve already explained to you what Hamilton meant in his quotation, or at least the short part of it you reproduced. He was referring to the natural law which is what man discovers from his reason, not the Bible.
Blackstone’s sentiments, btw, are consistent with theistic rationalism who holds that some revelation is legitimate, but man’s reason is supreme. Man’s reason determines what revelation is legitimately from God.
Wilson and Hamilton, following Blackstone, when they wrote such sentiments, noted two sources through which God revealed himself — the Bible and nature. They believed God primarily revealed himself through nature, and man’s reason primarily determined “the law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”
If revelation was to have any role at all, it was to support man’s reason, not the other way around. As James Wilson put it, “the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supersede the operations of reason and the moral sense.”
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/04/the-founders-higher-law.html
There are also many factual errors in your last post. For instance most of the Founding Fathers, I assure you, were not “heads of bible societies, meaning they were church officers(leaders) they all grew up studying the bible.”>>
The bible was mandatory in all schools, and yes most were church officers.
Further, James Wilson voted against PA’s Constitution, so he had nothing to do with its religious test.>>
Maybe he did vote against it, I don’t know, provide the reference.
But he wrote this: 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
Franklin’s letters to Benjamin Rush on the matter show that both of them believed such religious test violated the Declaration of Independence and its guarantee of natural rights.>>
The state constitutions prove they were wrong.
I’ve already explained to you what Hamilton meant in his quotation, or at least the short part of it you reproduced. He was referring to the natural law which is what man discovers from his reason, not the Bible.
Blackstone’s sentiments, btw, are consistent with theistic rationalism who holds that some revelation is legitimate, but man’s reason is supreme. Man’s reason determines what revelation is legitimately from God.
Wilson and Hamilton, following Blackstone, when they wrote such sentiments, noted two sources through which God revealed himself — the Bible and nature. They believed God primarily revealed himself through nature, and man’s reason primarily determined “the law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”
If revelation was to have any role at all, it was to support man’s reason, not the other way around. As James Wilson put it, “the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supersede the operations of reason and the moral sense.”>>
These statements are 100% wrong.
I. That law, the book of which we are neither able nor worthy to open. Of this law, the author and observer is God. He is a law to himself, as well as to all created things. This law we may name the “law eternal.” How can reason be superior if your reason isn’t worthy to open God’s law? Wilson right here says God created all things, our can your reason be greater than the one who Created it?
What you don’t seem to understand is God created your reason, you aren’t correlating the two. The Creator of your reason is greater than your reason, since He gave you the freewill to use reason.
. “Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick. But whoever expects to find, in them, particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find.”
III. That law, by which the irrational and inanimate parts of the creation are governed. The great Creator of all things has established general and fixed rules, according to which all the phenomena of the material universe are produced and regulated. YOU SEE, EVERYTHING IS ULTIMATELY REGULATED BY GOD, INCLUDING YOUR REASON.
“But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source: it is the law of God.” It’s impossible for your mind to be superior to the one who created it.
“Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.” Your mind cannot be a higher authority than the divine Word of God.
. “The divine law, as discovered by reason” How can reason be superior if it discovered the divine law? It’s impossible, the author of the reason made the divine law.
Here’s the kicker, “; for with regard to laws which are divine, they truly come from a superiour ― from Him who is supreme. THAT SUPERIOR LAW IS THE SCRIPTURES, WHICH YOUR REASON CONFORMS TO.
“How is this superiour constituted by human authority? How far does his superiority extend? Over whom is it exercised? Can any person or power, appointed by human authority, be superiour to those by whom he is appointed, and so form a necessary and essential part in the definition of a law?”
“In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.”
“One superiour advantage the precepts delivered in the sacred oracles clearly possess. They are, of all, the most explicit and the most certain.”
http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson1.doc
Regards
– Maybe he did vote against it, I don’t know, provide the reference.
But he wrote this: 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 –
You should throw that book away because it is giving you false information. Most of these primary sources are available online. Maybe you should do the research before I show it to you. I’ll give you a hint: There were two PA Constitutions and two religious tests. Wilson was involved in writing one set and voted against another. And you’ve utterly confused the two. The religious test in Wilson’s Constitution which he helped draft was not a Christian one but a theistic rationalist one.
As for the rest, you reproduced nothing to refute Wilson’s clear statement on the matter drawn from the same “Works”: “the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supersede the operations of reason and the moral sense.”
Wilson clearly elevates reason over revelation as the the ultimate arbiter of Truth, even God’s Truth. That’s one reason why he was a theistic rationalist, not an orthodox Christian.
Indeed, the last line you reproduced clearly demonstrates my point:
“The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.”
“One superiour advantage the precepts delivered in the sacred oracles clearly possess. They are, of all, the most explicit and the most certain.”
The “sacred oracles” which are “superiour” are from “the law of nature.” And “nature” means what man discovers from reason, not revelation. If you understood what Wilson meant, he’s calling “reason” superior to “revelation”; though in this context, he notes that the two by in large agree.
I’ll tackle the rest later when I have the time and interest.
The religious test in Wilson’s Constitution which he helped draft was not a Christian one but a theistic rationalist one.>>
Then provide the reference.
Wilson clearly elevates reason over revelation as the the ultimate arbiter of Truth, even God’s Truth>>
“Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick”
http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson1.doc
su·per·em·i·nent(spr-m-nnt)
adj.
Preeminent.
That about takes care of that, although, you can believe whatever falsehoods you want. The scriptures are preeminent. The scriptures are supreme over reason.
“That about takes care of that, although, you can believe whatever falsehoods you want. The scriptures are preeminent. The scriptures are supreme over reason.”
What I actually do is read the entire passage from which a quotation is taken, in context. If you did, you would find Wilson says:
“Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick.”
Then he goes on to explain why the holy scriptures are deficient and inferior to reason.
“But whoever expects to find, in them, particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil.
“These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense.”
As you see, he ends his thoughts stating that man’s reason trumps revelation. Though, the two, from his perspective, by in large agreed. If you read further you see him saying, “The law of nature is immutable….” “The law of nature is universal.” And like everyone else during the Founding era, he defines the law of nature with “reason.”
“That law, which God has made for man in his present state; that law, which is communicated to us by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles, the divine monitors without us. This law has undergone several subdivisions, and has been known by distinct appellations, according to the different ways in which it has been promulgated, and the different objects which it respects. As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the holy scriptures, it has been called revealed law.”
i.e, Natural law = reason, Revealed law = scripture. Nowhere does Wilson state scripture trumps reason, but the reverse.
As for your errors in your claims about Wilson and PA’s religious test, you should be able to figure it out yourself. But in any event, check for a new post tomorrow on the subject.
[...] In the comments section, James J. Goswick has repeated the following dubious information numerous times. 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, [...]
“Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick.”
Then he goes on to explain why the holy scriptures are deficient and inferior to reason.>>
What you just wrote is a contradiction.
“In cases, where his instructions are clear and positive, there would be an end of all farther deliberation. In other cases, where his instructions are silent, he would supply them by his general knowledge, and by the information…. Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick. But whoever expects to find, in them, particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find…These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels: it should flow in one united stream, which, by its combined force and just direction, will impel us uniformly and effectually towards our greatest good.”
Do you see that? ON THE MATTERS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE LAW(TEN COMMANDMENTS) REASON DOES NOT SUPERCEDE THE BIBLE, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE, BUT IN OUR CONSCIENCE. THEREFORE, YOUR CONSCIENCE(REASON) TAKES SUPERIORITY. Do you see that?
If God made your mind, which is your reason, explain how your reason is superior to God’s word, which is God?
Other quotes by Wilson affirming the correct view, If God is the author of the law of nature, man’s reason cannot be superior to God’s word.
I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature’s God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides;
But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source: it is the law of God.
“Nature, or, to speak more properly, the Author of nature… What we do, indeed, must be founded on what he has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of his. Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine”
James Wilson Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”1790-91
“Laws may be promulgated by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us. They are thus known as effectually, as by words or by writing: indeed they are thus known in a manner more noble and exalted. For, in this manner, they may be said to be engraven by God on the hearts of men: in this manner, he is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law.”(Explain how the man who is given his reason is superior to the one who gave it?)
Here Wilson Affirms Domat: Domat, in his book on the civil law, derives the power of governors from divine authority. “It is always he (God) who places them in the seat of authority: it is from him alone that they derive all the power and authority that they have; and it is the ministry of his justice that is committed to them. And seeing it is God himself whom they represent, in the rank which raises them above others; he will have them to be considered as holding his place in their functions. And it is for this reason, that he himself gives the name of gods to those, to whom he communicates the right of governing and judging men.”‡
Here Wilson affirsm Boecler: “The supreme authority,”* says Boecler, “is not to be derived from the bare act of man, but from the command of God, and from the law of nature; or from such an act of men, by which the law of nature was followed and obeyed.”
Logically, you have to be wrong.
Regards
James,
If you understood the proper framework from which to view this issue, you’d see that there is no contradiction in logic on my part. The biggest error you make is you assume Wilson, Hamilton and others, presupposed an inerrant Bible; they do not. More likely, with Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin they presupposed an errant Bible. That’s why man’s reason supersedes revelation. Truth is to be found both from nature and revelation. And man’s reason is the penultimate tool for discovering truth, including what parts of the Bible were legitimately revealed.
I discuss, in detail, the four ways in which folks during the Founding era viewed reason and revelation in the following post, which you might find helpful.
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/05/theistic-rationalism-from-the-pulpit.html
1) The first is traditional orthodox Christian/Protestant view ala Luther and Calvin: Scripture is infallible, man’s reason, while perhaps useful in support of revelation, is clearly subservient to it; indeed Luther once called man’s reason, “the Devil’s whore.”
2) The second is Aquinas’: Scripture is still infallible; yet, man, by the use of his reason can discover truths that are equal to scripture; this is the natural law. Such discoveries, however, will never contradict revelation because reason and revelation always perfectly agree.
3) The third is the theistic rationalists’: Scripture is not infallible; yet some scripture was legitimately revealed by God. As Dr. Frazer puts it, “revelation was designed to complement reason (not vice versa). Reason was the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God.” This is the view of our key Founders including Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and I would argue Washington as well.
4) The fourth is the strict deists’: Revelation is useless. Truth is only to be found from man’s reason/nature.
I’d imagine that you are number 1. The key Founding Fathers were either 2 or 3. While 2 is consistent with orthodox Christianity, 3 is not. And 3 is the theistic rationalist position, which I think the best evidence shows Wilson believed. The following quotation shows that Wilson could not have been a number higher than 2.
“These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense.”
The biggest error you make is you assume Wilson, Hamilton and others, presupposed an inerrant Bible; they do not.>>
Provide the evidence. You didn’t refute my post, and you can’t, it’s impossible for you to be right. or explain how man is greater than his creator. And provide the exact reasoning and scriptures that are not inerrant?
“Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick.”
Which scriptures are not preeminent? I’ll wait for the list.
“You didn’t refute my post, and you can’t, it’s impossible for you to be right. or explain how man is greater than his creator.”
My logic doesn’t require me to prove that man is greater than His creator, just that these Founders thought the Bible was errant.
If you want to know which scriptures are not preemimient, you could look at Jefferson’s home made Bible and all of the parts he cut out believing them to be false, not legitimately revealed.
My logic doesn’t require me to prove that man is greater than His creator, just that these Founders thought the Bible was errant.>>
Besides Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, you have none of the other two hundred or so framers’ words that claim parts of the bible are errant, or you would have posted them.
you could look at Jefferson’s home made Bible and all of the parts he cut out believing them to be false, not legitimately revealed.>>
That’s one person. Madison, Sherman, Livingston, Wilson, Hamilton, Washington, etc. you have yet to show us their personal quotes rejecting inherency of the bible.
Actually James,
James Wilson, in the very “Works” which we’ve been discussing denies the possibilities of miracles.
“This immutability of nature’s laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself.”
– Works, I:124
In other words, God can not and will not violate the laws he created. It would be irrational for him to contradict those perfect laws which he established. And miracles, by their very definition, suspend the laws of nature. See Dr. Gregg Frazer’s Ph.D. thesis pp. 191-92, which I paraphrased.
Your theology may not teach this, but it is what Wilson, the theistic rationalist, believed.
And miracles, by their very definition, suspend the laws of nature.>>
Since God is outside of time and superior to the physical laws, He can break them anytime He wants. Your view contradicts Wilson again, as usual, for the Creation of the universe is the greatest miracle there is and Wilson affirmed it.
“After the lapse of six thousand years since the creation of the world America now presents the first instance of a people assembled to weigh deliberately and calmly and to decide leisurely and peaceably upon the form of government by which they will bind themselves and their posterity.”
James Wilson- Chapter VI. The Federal Convention Page 1
http://www.web-books.com/classics/Nonfiction/History/FaConst/FaConstC6P1.htm
Not only did James Wilson believe in miracles, he believed in the account of creation from the bible, whamo!
“Not only did James Wilson believe in miracles, he believed in the account of creation from the bible, whamo!”
Um. Read it again. It’s not my words, it’s Wilson’s:
“This immutability of nature’s laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself.”
– Works, I:124
“Since God is outside of time and superior to the physical laws, He can break them anytime He wants.”
Tell it to Wilson who disagrees with this notion. He may have believed in creation 6000 ago (which makes sense given that he lived before Darwin) but he explicitly denied the possibility of miracles.
“This immutability of nature’s laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself.”
Tell it to Wilson who disagrees with this notion>>
Do you have any other quotes regarding that? It seems there should be other quotes that aren’t so vague. It doesn’t make sense, the creation is the greatest miracle.
which makes sense given that he lived before Darwin)>>
He would have laughed at that.