Romney's Founders

Mitt Romney’s recent reflections on the role of religion in American politics implicitly called to mind a disturbingly distorted version of history that has become part of the conventional wisdom of American politics in recent years.

 

That version of history suggests that the Founders intended to create a “Christian Nation,” and that we have unfortunately drifted away from that vision of the United States. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Those who promote this fiction confuse the Puritans, who intended to create a theocratic state, with the Founders, who lived 150 years later. The Founders were not Puritans, but men of the Enlightenment. They lived not in an Age of Faith, but in an Age of Reason. They viewed issues of religion through a prism of rational thought.

 

To be sure, there were traditional Christians among the Founders, including such men as John Jay, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Most of the Founders, however, were not traditional Christians, but deists who were quite skeptical of traditional Christianity. They believed that a benevolent Supreme Being had created the universe and the laws of nature and had given man the power of reason with which to discover the meaning of those laws. They viewed religious passion as irrational and dangerously divisive, and they challenged, both publicly and privately, the dogmas of traditional Christianity.

 

Benjamin Franklin, for example, dismissed most of Christian doctrine as “unintelligible.” He believed in a deity who “delights” in man’s “pursuit of happiness.” He regarded Jesus as a wise moral philosopher, but not necessarily as a divine or divinely inspired figure. He viewed all religions as more or less interchangeable in their most fundamental tenets, which he believed required men to treat each other with kindness and respect.

 

Thomas Jefferson was a thoroughgoing skeptic who valued reason above faith. He subjected every religious tradition, including his own, to careful scrutiny. He had no patience for talk of miracles, revelation, and resurrection. Like Franklin, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral philosopher, but insisted that Jesus’ teachings had been distorted beyond all recognition by a succession of “corruptors,” such as Paul, Augustine, and Calvin. He regarded such doctrines as predestination, trinitarianism, and original sin as “nonsense,” “abracadabra” and “a deliria of crazy imaginations.” He referred to Christianity as “our peculiar superstition” and maintained that “ridicule” was the only rational response to the “unintelligible propositions” of traditional Christianity.

 

John Adams, who identified most closely with the early Unitarians, also believed that the original teachings of Jesus had been sound, but that Christianity had subsequently gone awry. He wrote to Jefferson that the essence of his religious beliefs was captured in the phrase, “Be just and good.” As President, Adams signed a treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, stating unambiguously that “the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

 

George Washington was respectful of traditional Christianity, but he did not have much use for it. His personal papers offer no evidence that he believed in biblical revelation, eternal life, or Jesus’ divinity. Clergymen who knew Washington well bemoaned his skeptical approach to Christianity. Bishop William White, for example, admitted that no “degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in Christian revelation.”

 

Tom Paine, the author of Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason, insisted that “the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian religion,” because it “is free from those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason.” Paine explained that deism’s creed “is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests. It honours Reason as the choicest gift of God to man” and “it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.” Paine dismissed Christianity as “a fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.” In Paine’s view, traditional Christianity had “served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.”

 

These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and “politically incorrect” to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders. The fable that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is just that – a fable.

 

It is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence does not invoke Jesus, or Christ, or Our Father, or the Almighty, but the “Laws of Nature,” “Nature’s God,” the “Supreme Judge,” and “Divine Providence,” all phrases that belong to the tradition of deism. The Declaration of Independence is not a Puritan or Calvinist or Methodist or Baptist or Protestant or Catholic or Christian document, but a document of the Enlightenment. It is a statement that deeply and intentionally invokes the language of American deism. It is a document of its own time, and it speaks eloquently about what Americans of that time believed.

 

The Constitution goes even further. It does not invoke the deity at all. Unlike the Puritan documents of the early seventeenth century, it makes no reference whatever to God. It cites as its ultimate source of authority not “the command of God,” but “We the People,” the stated purpose of the Constitution is not to create a government “according to the will of God” but to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Significantly, the only reference to religion in the 1789 Constitution expressly prohibits the use of any religious test for public office.

 

The Founders were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But they also understood that religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter that had no place in the political life of a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state. They would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring “faith-based” initiatives. They would have been quite happy to tolerate Mitt Romney’s Mormonism – as long as he keeps it out of our government.

Comments

[LegioNofZioN]

Again Kimball comes in making sense. I find it hard to argue with someone who uses logic. I admit my usage of the term faithful falls out of congruence with academic norms, but it is accurate in the sense of the self detemination of the people who elect to use it as I described it. that my "cultist friends" (code word for family) use that terminology along with many other west indians does make it authoritative in the sense that this group identifies iteself that way. to us, if one has no faith in scriptures, the central point of belief, then one cannot be faithful. I have to admit that by this criteria I often don't measure up, but I'm not here to self define but to acknowledge the others before me and their position in this. LAK, you made me laugh when you said you needed to speak with your friends who are "faithful" but reject scriptures. this is a funny thing to say to someone whose cultural background has clear definitions as to what this may or may not be, while what you said is considered a contradictory statement. I don't know much about the US, but I know a lot about Canada and the West Indies. Your inability, LAK, to see outside of your own cultural prejudices is a scary thing, especially for a "thinker". My quote of Einstein back there was meant to be a dig at your because of this. You lack the sophistication of most people on here in this thread.
arminius, I have to agree. the field of candidates in the states leaves me very worried. what passes for a conservative in the Republican party is laughable at best. Things are going to get worse before they get better. But please don't liken Obama to Carter, Carter was the last president who had been ok with the racial purity of neighbourhoods. Don't get me started on your country's worst president of the 20th century.

Kimball, I agree with you so far as to the current situation in many countries around the globe. I think the issue is much larger than Bush, but he does deserve blame. My largest concern is that despite who inherits the presidency (your media loves Clinton) none are capable of handling it without breaking a few eggs along the way. I think your next president is going to take GW's lead (it will be a dem for sure) and screw things up for generations to come. Whoever takes overwill put on a song and dance for the first few months to a year until everyone realizes its the same old story. then and only then will the viability of a third party seem mainstream in thought. after repubs and dems both screw it up who do you have to look to ?

[LAK]

Honestly, to talk about reason, science and the enlightenment as if it was a matter of culture and alone is absurd. It's not just the Western world for whom electricty flows. And it wan't through ignorant and patently false and anti-intellectual beliefs that brought you the material progress you so take for granted.

To talk of secularism or rejecting of beliefs that run counter to accepted scientific truth as some kind of fucntion of a particular culture is downright frightening. Believe it or not, there are absolute truths in the world that transcend culture or performance or any of it. And those truths, truths that brought you the computer you write at, the car you drive and the electricity you use, came from our secular country, the greatest country ever.

I've been all around this world. I've met people of all walks of life. It is no mistake religion goes hand in hand with poverty and poor education. I've seen it. I can love someone and respect their humanity and at the same time outright reject their religious beliefs.

I guess religion and wishy washy cultural relativism do serve a purpose for each other.

Save me Jebus. No no. Save me Martha Nussbaum.

[Kimball Corson]

Speaking of the next president, a few days ago, after the Iowa primary, Obama, publicly, and Bill Clinton, privately, said that if Hillary or Obama wins both Iowa and New Hamshire, that winner will get the nomination. Hillary is now falling apart in New Hamshire, the press reports and she is quite tearful about it. Current polls in the State show her double digets behind. We are likely to have Obama as our next president. That should be interesting.

[Kimball Corsonk]

Speaking of being guided by the ethers, when is Geof going to give us a post regarding Huckabee? Anything will do. Just slip a soapbox under us.

[LegioNofZioN]

LAK you just graduated to the real world with the most cogent contribution to this thread thusly. Congrats. I'm a Canucklehead so I had to compliment you before I disagreed with you. but the term "faithfull" has very little to do with science or reason. It s a word in the english language of which there are many derivitives and the cultural context of how we use it is no lessened by your cry. You may disagree but no one has control over language it evolves along with its speakers over generations. If the West Indians make half as much inroads in the next 2 decades as we did in your popular culture in the last 2 decades expect the definition of faithfull and I noted to become even more widely accepted. As I understand your evangelicals already have (but not before us mind you). I know you are proud of your country and there are many great things Americans have accomplished in the last century, but your country is neither secular nor religious. your government is secular, your communities are whatever they want to be, as such labels like religious or secular will never cover enough people to be accurate. America is the great Melting Pot. It houses many peoples of differing positions and frames of mind. You are not quite as successful as the West Indies in assimilating foreign individuals but you will learn. Glad to see you using your god given mind.

Kimball, I have been paying attention and it does look like Obama is doing well so far. Not well enough to say he is a lock, but enough to say he has the momentum. Obama is a better pick for the Dems, cause the Repub's will use kid gloves on him just to avoid being accused of racism. That said, I really wish he was a conservative. I would prefer Americas first black president to have a lasting positive legacy. If you promise too much, people will inevitably be let down. I hope he has better ideas for governing in practise than he espouses on the trail. As for Huckabee now there is someone we can agree on, I have no idea why he is even given the time of day. He plainly panders to the religious, without substance behind it. He has done some truly stupid things while in a position of control. He is just not presidential material. In the last few months nearly every republican candidate has been a disappointment. McCain I like, and FD Thompson's libertarian conservatism is attractive but other than that zilch.

[LAK]

"Thusly?"

Your attempts at feigning above average intelligence don't work very well. Remember you're the guy who believes God impregnates human virgins, and you're trolling on the University of Chicago law blog.

"That said, I really wish he was a conservative. I would prefer Americas first black president to have a lasting positive legacy."

What, like George Bush?

With all due respect, I'd be surprised if you went to college at this point. Did you?

[LAK]

P.S.

I'll take the U of C Theology dept.'s definition and use of "faith" over some barley educated Canadian's who believes the Bible to be true any day.

[Kimball Corson]

"That said, I really wish he was a conservative. I would prefer Americas first black president to have a lasting positive legacy." Not like FDR's, does Zion mean?

Perhaps we should all start praying to the ethers:

Martin Feldstein, a top economist at Harvard and President of the National Bureau of Economic Research, says the odds now favor a US recession. It can only be avoided, he argues, by quick and aggressive fiscal and monetary policy, but that is not likely to happen with the Fed and this Government (read Bush, who has just conceded that the economy does have some problems along with its great strengths).

And Zion wants a conservative for our next president, i.e., someone who is slow to embrace change. Good luck to us all; we are going to need it.

[LegioNofZioN]

LAK attacking my intelligence and education ? At the risk of playing on the defensive I'll bite, cause at least you argue at a high school level. Something I am obviously capable of handling. I don't feign intelligence sir, my vocabulary is just large enough that I can engage in dialogue without overusing tired phrases. I'm sorry you think the word "thusly" is an example of attempting to look intelligent, I just thought it was a word that fit the flow of my ramblings. take any definition of any word you want, its your life, and you can be as wrong as you want to. I am going to admit though that my only degree is in radio broadcasting and as such is far from prestigious, but I have to admit to a certain distain towards pretentious university types who think they know a lot without having lived in the real world. Practical experience is the hallmark of wisdom, intelligence alone is nothing without the ability to apply it aptly.

Now as to GW being a conservative, he claims the label, I must admit. Though his actions and policies don't exemplify conservative ideology. Friedrick Hayek would turn over in his grave over GW's wolf in conservative's clothing. the greatest economist of the 20th century who helped steer your country through decades was a conservative, and it wasn't conservatives who fought against slavery and segregation it was democrats (though certainly not liberals either). thanks for the personal attacks LAK, I'd trade them with you, but I have more class than that.

Kimball the so called conservatives vying for control of the repulican party are far from the type of conservative I would want to see running your country. I would prefer Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, or maybe even Herman Cain as a republican runner with actual conservative values that would help move your country along. The current field is a guarantee that the republicans will not win this year. As such I hope the dem who wins can do a good job, but the current field doesn't give me any high hopes. you are going to need some luck, that much is certain.

[Kimball Corson]

Me thinks we are going in circles, LAK, with the ether breathers. They believe god exists, he said what he did and that is that. Compartmental door closed.

[Tad]

Mr. Stone,

I noted your birth date. I noted when you graduated from college. I recalled that I left college voluntarily to go to the late RVN (and shame on the Congress for what they did) as my country was at war. Some things are very complex, some things are pig simple. You, Sir, may be many things, but you were not a warrior in your youth.

I've no idea if this is true in your case, but very many Liberals (aka [now] Progressives [truth in advertizing..not] protect their egos by denying that they made a mistake.

Sir, You will - if you seriously look around - finally see that socialism, Liberalism, and PC arguments (not to mention all the awful legislation and regulation) have stolen much of what was good in our country. Bad things, most assuredly, needed to be fixed. They were not. They were certainly changed, but not fixed.

I lament what has occured in my country. I wonder why Liberals cannot see it. Blinded by some rage?

I remain,

Semper Fidelis,

LtCol William Curtis USMC (Ret)

[Ted]

On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU