Cato Reproduces My Essay

Jonathan Rowe on Oct 16th 2007

I’d like to thank the editors at Cato Unbound for reproducing my essay reacting to their symposium on political theology and America.

Filed in The Basement, The Belfry, The Bureau

4 Responses to “Cato Reproduces My Essay”

  1. # Tom Van Dykeon 18 Oct 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Cheers, mate. You’ve paid your dues with conscientious and fair research, and have earned your place at the table.

    One thing I’ve learned from you, and following your studies, is how unsettled the question of the philosophical-religious landscape of the Founding really is, even after 200+ years. The 19th century revisionists turned them all into orthodox Christians, the 20th’s made them atheists for all practical purposes.

    I can accept your formulation

    He was not quite the strict Deist God that some secular scholars have made Him out to be. But neither was He the Biblical God. Rather, somewhere in between.

    with the proviso that their God was a cross between Deism’s and none other than the Biblical God—and the 1700-odd years of philosophy/theology built upon that Biblical God—that resulted in the D of I’s Creator Who endowed man with unalienable rights.

    Our civil religion should certainly accommodate Jefferson and Adams’ amateur theology that the Gods of Islam and Hinduism are also of the same fabric, but even if their God(s) also endow man with unalienable rights, historical accuracy demands we acknowledge that their accompanying cultures and philosophies did not.

    Oooops, sorry for the quibble, which I’ll submit anyway now that I done writ it up. The story of the day is that it turns out you’re not only a gentleman but a scholar, Jon, and this Bud’s for you. I think that from here on in, anyone who writes on the subject needs to be able to get it past Jonathan Rowe.

  2. # Jonathan Roweon 18 Oct 2007 at 9:03 pm

    Many, many thanks Tom.

  3. # William B. Stantonon 04 Nov 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Mr. Rowe’s pedantic discourse is both intellectually void of theological construct, as well as consistently invalid regarding the Christian ideals of our nation during its infancy. His conclusions circumvent any historically-proven documentation, while providing no credibility to his underlying premise. Just my opinion.

  4. # Jonathan Roweon 04 Nov 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Mr. Stanton:

    You can spend many hours studying my other blog posts which meticulously pour through the primary sources to support every assertion I make.

    Or, you can question me on specific claims of mine with which you disagree and ask for proof in the primary sources, and I’ll show you. Otherwise you are just blowin’ smoke.

Trackback URI |