Religious beliefs of America's founders...
3,491 Views |
45 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by TexasAggie81
I cringe every time I hear "Judeo-Christian".
Yeah, already 2 and 3 from the first minute are debatable. All 3 if you include Thomas Paine as a founder. And the presentation of the beliefs of Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson are ridiculously over simplistic and leave out crucial details. To say all 4 of them held unorthodox beliefs without explaining just how unorthodox they were for the 18th century, Jefferson in particular, does no favors.
A "writer and researcher" from the Museum of the Bible is the best they could do for this foray into early American history?
A "writer and researcher" from the Museum of the Bible is the best they could do for this foray into early American history?
Is there much dispute that the overwhelming majority of the attendees at the Constitutional Convention were devout Chrisitians?
I've heard pretty strong arguments that Jefferson should not be considered a "founder". His absence in France has been interpreted by some as a deliberate act to make sure that he had little to no input into the negotiation and drafting of the Constitution.
I've heard pretty strong arguments that Jefferson should not be considered a "founder". His absence in France has been interpreted by some as a deliberate act to make sure that he had little to no input into the negotiation and drafting of the Constitution.
So now Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and a key figure in Revolutionary Virginia's politics is being demoted? The founders aren't just those at the Constitutional Convention. It's about 2-3 generations of people who created the whole framework for revolution and republic.
And many were doctrinally orthodox Christians. That does not mean they founded the United States as a doctrinally Christian nation. They saw it as vital to the exercise of religion that it not be.
And many were doctrinally orthodox Christians. That does not mean they founded the United States as a doctrinally Christian nation. They saw it as vital to the exercise of religion that it not be.
I think a lot of the founders had Episcopalians/Anglicans roots
What is a doctrinally Christian nation?
Sapper, you frequently make me laugh. You reflexively argue with anyone that you perceive to be "on the other side" even when they say something that could possibly support your side.Sapper Redux said:
So now Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and a key figure in Revolutionary Virginia's politics is being demoted? The founders aren't just those at the Constitutional Convention. It's about 2-3 generations of people who created the whole framework for revolution and republic.
And many were doctrinally orthodox Christians. That does not mean they founded the United States as a doctrinally Christian nation. They saw it as vital to the exercise of religion that it not be.
What I said about Jefferson was commonly espoused by lefty historians in the 60s-80s. They viewed the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution as a conservative counter revolution to the radicalism espoused by Jefferson. It was the lefties that argued that Jefferson was purposefully sent out of the country during the drafting and negotiation of the provisions of the country in order to keep his radical paws off of it. In other words, it's not conservatives demoting Jefferson.
You are absolutely correct that the Constitution was created out of a social framework and milieu that took generations to create. And that social framework was unabashedly Christian. Christianity was woven into every inch of the fabric of colonial America. The drafters did not need to ensure Christianity's presence because it was already everywhere.
In your last paragraph you frequently refer to "they" as if there was a 100% consensus among the drafters about the role of Christianity. There was no such consensus, and only the mildest consensus was expressed in the words of the Constitution itself regarding Christianity or any other religion. The best way to interpret the drafters' intent regarding the role of Christianity is to see what happened immediately after ratification - Christianity continued to be woven into every piece of fabric of society, in both law and everyday practice.
Your and the modern view of the role of religion in government is really a view that became prevalent only during the 1950s when the Warren Court started the effort to remove the threads of Christianity from the fabric of society. We are now starting to see the fruits of their efforts as that fabric continues to unravel.
Jabin said:Sapper, you frequently make me laugh. You reflexively argue with anyone that you perceive to be "on the other side" even when they say something that could possibly support your side.Sapper Redux said:
So now Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and a key figure in Revolutionary Virginia's politics is being demoted? The founders aren't just those at the Constitutional Convention. It's about 2-3 generations of people who created the whole framework for revolution and republic.
And many were doctrinally orthodox Christians. That does not mean they founded the United States as a doctrinally Christian nation. They saw it as vital to the exercise of religion that it not be.
What I said about Jefferson was commonly espoused by lefty historians in the 60s-80s. They viewed the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution as a conservative counter revolution to the radicalism espoused by Jefferson. It was the lefties that argued that Jefferson was purposefully sent out of the country during the drafting and negotiation of the provisions of the country in order to keep his radical paws off of it. In other words, it's not conservatives demoting Jefferson.
You are absolutely correct that the Constitution was created out of a social framework and milieu that took generations to create. And that social framework was unabashedly Christian. Christianity was woven into every inch of the fabric of colonial America. The drafters did not need to ensure Christianity's presence because it was already everywhere.
In your last paragraph you frequently refer to "they" as if there was a 100% consensus among the drafters about the role of Christianity. There was no such consensus, and only the mildest consensus was expressed in the words of the Constitution itself regarding Christianity or any other religion. The best way to interpret the drafters' intent regarding the role of Christianity is to see what happened immediately after ratification - Christianity continued to be woven into every piece of fabric of society, in both law and everyday practice.
Your and the modern view of the role of religion in government is really a view that became prevalent only during the 1950s when the Warren Court started the effort to remove the threads of Christianity from the fabric of society. We are now starting to see the fruits of their efforts as that fabric continues to unravel.
Nothing like getting things kicked off with a nugget like this...
Agree with it and blue starred it.Macarthur said:Jabin said:Sapper, you frequently make me laugh. You reflexively argue with anyone that you perceive to be "on the other side" even when they say something that could possibly support your side.Sapper Redux said:
So now Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and a key figure in Revolutionary Virginia's politics is being demoted? The founders aren't just those at the Constitutional Convention. It's about 2-3 generations of people who created the whole framework for revolution and republic.
And many were doctrinally orthodox Christians. That does not mean they founded the United States as a doctrinally Christian nation. They saw it as vital to the exercise of religion that it not be.
What I said about Jefferson was commonly espoused by lefty historians in the 60s-80s. They viewed the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution as a conservative counter revolution to the radicalism espoused by Jefferson. It was the lefties that argued that Jefferson was purposefully sent out of the country during the drafting and negotiation of the provisions of the country in order to keep his radical paws off of it. In other words, it's not conservatives demoting Jefferson.
You are absolutely correct that the Constitution was created out of a social framework and milieu that took generations to create. And that social framework was unabashedly Christian. Christianity was woven into every inch of the fabric of colonial America. The drafters did not need to ensure Christianity's presence because it was already everywhere.
In your last paragraph you frequently refer to "they" as if there was a 100% consensus among the drafters about the role of Christianity. There was no such consensus, and only the mildest consensus was expressed in the words of the Constitution itself regarding Christianity or any other religion. The best way to interpret the drafters' intent regarding the role of Christianity is to see what happened immediately after ratification - Christianity continued to be woven into every piece of fabric of society, in both law and everyday practice.
Your and the modern view of the role of religion in government is really a view that became prevalent only during the 1950s when the Warren Court started the effort to remove the threads of Christianity from the fabric of society. We are now starting to see the fruits of their efforts as that fabric continues to unravel.
Nothing like getting things kicked off with a nugget like this...
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
And Congregationalist, primarily up north. It was very different than its modern descendant.BurnetAggie99 said:
I think a lot of the founders had Episcopalians/Anglicans roots
One in which all of its fairways and greens are St. Augustine? Ok - maybe not all. Some could've been Origen-ally Bermuda.Zobel said:
What is a doctrinally Christian nation?
Zobel said:
What is a doctrinally Christian nation?
One in which an embraced orthodoxy of the religion is woven into the structure and function of the state.
Jabin said:Sapper, you frequently make me laugh. You reflexively argue with anyone that you perceive to be "on the other side" even when they say something that could possibly support your side.Sapper Redux said:
So now Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and a key figure in Revolutionary Virginia's politics is being demoted? The founders aren't just those at the Constitutional Convention. It's about 2-3 generations of people who created the whole framework for revolution and republic.
And many were doctrinally orthodox Christians. That does not mean they founded the United States as a doctrinally Christian nation. They saw it as vital to the exercise of religion that it not be.
What I said about Jefferson was commonly espoused by lefty historians in the 60s-80s. They viewed the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution as a conservative counter revolution to the radicalism espoused by Jefferson. It was the lefties that argued that Jefferson was purposefully sent out of the country during the drafting and negotiation of the provisions of the country in order to keep his radical paws off of it. In other words, it's not conservatives demoting Jefferson.
You are absolutely correct that the Constitution was created out of a social framework and milieu that took generations to create. And that social framework was unabashedly Christian. Christianity was woven into every inch of the fabric of colonial America. The drafters did not need to ensure Christianity's presence because it was already everywhere.
In your last paragraph you frequently refer to "they" as if there was a 100% consensus among the drafters about the role of Christianity. There was no such consensus, and only the mildest consensus was expressed in the words of the Constitution itself regarding Christianity or any other religion. The best way to interpret the drafters' intent regarding the role of Christianity is to see what happened immediately after ratification - Christianity continued to be woven into every piece of fabric of society, in both law and everyday practice.
Your and the modern view of the role of religion in government is really a view that became prevalent only during the 1950s when the Warren Court started the effort to remove the threads of Christianity from the fabric of society. We are now starting to see the fruits of their efforts as that fabric continues to unravel.
You were saying Jefferson was left off the list of founders. That's not ever happened. What you seem to be referencing is a much more nuanced debate. Federalists were happy to have Jefferson sidelined during the Constitutional debate, but then, even his allies were happy to have him a bit sidelined because his politics could be erratic and his ideals didn't always match with possible realities. Additionally Jefferson himself preferred being in France, especially as their revolution grew close.
As for Christianity in the early republic, a few things.
1. the founders looked to pagan Greece and Rome for their models of government. They saw states heavily influenced by any church as being corrupt and authoritarian.
2. The founders who were devout Christians wouldn't have agreed that the other guys were Christians. Read The Transformation of Virginia for a sense of how divided notions of what constituted acceptable Christianity were in the era. The idea that everyone who believes in Jesus is actually a Christian is a very modern concept. So saying it was a "Christian nation" would have been jibberish in 1789 if you were including Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, etc together.
3. The founders themselves wanted a religiously neutral state. They state it repeatedly. The only mention of religion in the Constitution is to limit it. Yes, Christianity had a heavy cultural impact, but again, much of that was mixed with in-group and out-group debates in which a Congregationalist in Virginia would have trouble as would a Catholic in Boston.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll see if I can get it from my local library. Just to make sure, the author is Rhys Isaac, correct?Quote:
2. The founders who were devout Christians wouldn't have agreed that the other guys were Christians. Read The Transformation of Virginia for a sense of how divided notions of what constituted acceptable Christianity were in the era. The idea that everyone who believes in Jesus is actually a Christian is a very modern concept. So saying it was a "Christian nation" would have been jibberish in 1789 if you were including Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, etc together.
But the limitations placed on religion in the Constitution were themselves quite limited and vague. Again, none of the founders protested about the ubiquitous presence of religion in government and society even after the Constitution was ratified. It wasn't until ~ the 1950s that we witnessed people asserting that that religious presence, that had been in place for over 150 years, was unConstitutional. The conduct and speech of the founders post-ratification would seem to be the best evidence of their interpretation of the Constitution's restrictions on religion.Quote:
3. The founders themselves wanted a religiously neutral state. They state it repeatedly. The only mention of religion in the Constitution is to limit it. Yes, Christianity had a heavy cultural impact, but again, much of that was mixed with in-group and out-group debates in which a Congregationalist in Virginia would have trouble as would a Catholic in Boston.
Getting back to the original topic of the thread, I don't know that I see any good reason to care exactly what the religious beliefs of the founding fathers were. Other than trying to get a better sense of what their intent was behind the laws and other documents that they created it makes little difference to me whether they were some flavor of Christian or deist or Unitarian or whatever.
I suspect that those who argue the loudest that it was Christians who made all the difference and that their points of view were shaped by Christianity alone are the same ones who advance the view that American is a uniquely Christian nation and is special in some religious way that other nations are not. This view of America does seem to be pretty common within American Christianity. But then again, people believing that their nation is specially blessed by their god is common all over the world and amongst different religions. Turn on the news and you'll see priests of the Russian Orthodox Church fully supporting the war against Ukraine in explicitly religious terms that praise Russia as being favored by god. Most Muslim nations will say they're favored by Allah. India's Modi is the leader of a Hindu nationalist party. Why should American Christianity be any different?
I suspect that those who argue the loudest that it was Christians who made all the difference and that their points of view were shaped by Christianity alone are the same ones who advance the view that American is a uniquely Christian nation and is special in some religious way that other nations are not. This view of America does seem to be pretty common within American Christianity. But then again, people believing that their nation is specially blessed by their god is common all over the world and amongst different religions. Turn on the news and you'll see priests of the Russian Orthodox Church fully supporting the war against Ukraine in explicitly religious terms that praise Russia as being favored by god. Most Muslim nations will say they're favored by Allah. India's Modi is the leader of a Hindu nationalist party. Why should American Christianity be any different?
that seems pretty fuzzy.
since these United States were originally a collection of sovereign entities (at least nominally) would you say that New Hampshire, Connecticut, or Massachusetts were doctrinally Christian?
since these United States were originally a collection of sovereign entities (at least nominally) would you say that New Hampshire, Connecticut, or Massachusetts were doctrinally Christian?
this is the opposite error of what you talked about in point two.Quote:
The founders themselves wanted a religiously neutral state.
setting up "religiously neutral" to mean "having no opinion about any religion at all" is as much gibberish. if we tug the string "religiously neutral" is much closer to "making no favoritism between various Trinitarian Christianities" than the former.
well it matters because the political system outlined in the US Constitution was not dropped from heaven on divine tablets inscribed by the finger of God. it was a designed system, and like any designed system it had goals, constraints, requirements and inherent choices or trade-offs involved. not all of these choices or trade-offs are made explicit in the document itself - some are only found in the background.
if you don't understand the ideas of public and private virtue and how those virtues are fundamentally and inextricably related to religion or piety in general - and in the US, Christianity in particular - you absolutely cannot understand the system presented in the Constitution.
if you don't understand the ideas of public and private virtue and how those virtues are fundamentally and inextricably related to religion or piety in general - and in the US, Christianity in particular - you absolutely cannot understand the system presented in the Constitution.
I partially accept that. But I think there's a limit on how useful that actually can be. Our Constitution and our laws were not created by any one person but were the product of many people working together. The views of any one particular person can't dominate all of the others. At some point you have to let the text speak for itself. We're starting to get into questions about how laws should be read and interpreted and for that there isn't really a correct answer as it is more a matter of opinion.
sure. and some opinions are dumb and bad, and some opinions are smart and good. informed opinions are generally better than ignorant ones.
if you want to understand the constitution, you need to read the books the founders were reading to be able to understand what it was they were trying to do.
coming to the text with a blank slate to let it speak for itself is a guaranteed way to misunderstand it.
in my opinion if you were to read one background text and no other, you'd need to read Aristotle's Politics. without that you're lost reading the constitution.
if you want to understand the constitution, you need to read the books the founders were reading to be able to understand what it was they were trying to do.
coming to the text with a blank slate to let it speak for itself is a guaranteed way to misunderstand it.
in my opinion if you were to read one background text and no other, you'd need to read Aristotle's Politics. without that you're lost reading the constitution.
Of course, that is always the starting point. But it is useful to look at the intent of the Founders and of the voters who ratified the Constitution to try to figure out text that isn't clear, or how it's applied to a particular issue is not clear.Quote:
At some point you have to let the text speak for itself.
FWIW, that is basic document and contract interpretation that is taught in the first year of law school. "Stay within the 4 corners of the document unless there is an ambiguity." (Of course, it's never that simple. One is also permitted to bring in extraneous evidence to show that language, which appears straightforward and unambiguous, is in fact not so. The classic example is the word "dozen" in bakers' contracts. It actually means 13.)
it should be noted, however, that in order to be considered qualified to read and interpret the law you have to have four years of college plus three years of legal training and pass a fairly strenuous test.
Not sure what your point here is in the context of this thread. Plus, you're not correct. Anyone may read and interpret the law. It's an American tradition, perhaps even a mandatory requirement to truly be an American!Zobel said:
it should be noted, however, that in order to be considered qualified to read and interpret the law you have to have four years of college plus three years of legal training and pass a fairly strenuous test.
The other requirements you mention only apply if you want to practice law, i.e., to represent someone other than yourself in a legal context.
I brought up the legal standards for contract interpretation as simply a good guideline developed by folks who have for centuries been required to read and interpret documents daily.
Of course anyone can. I said considered qualified.
The point is there is a little bit of irony that in defending the statement that we should read the law at face value over and against considering background information you appealed to the considerable training and education you got on how to read and interpret the law. If that was all it took law school should be much shorter, no?
My point is it is not wrong to say we should let the text speak. But people will argue about what that face value means, and informed opinions may lead to very different conclusions about what the text is saying as it speaks for itself vs ignorant ones.
The point is there is a little bit of irony that in defending the statement that we should read the law at face value over and against considering background information you appealed to the considerable training and education you got on how to read and interpret the law. If that was all it took law school should be much shorter, no?
My point is it is not wrong to say we should let the text speak. But people will argue about what that face value means, and informed opinions may lead to very different conclusions about what the text is saying as it speaks for itself vs ignorant ones.
Zobel said:this is the opposite error of what you talked about in point two.Quote:
The founders themselves wanted a religiously neutral state.
setting up "religiously neutral" to mean "having no opinion about any religion at all" is as much gibberish. if we tug the string "religiously neutral" is much closer to "making no favoritism between various Trinitarian Christianities" than the former.
Except the men most closely associated with the creation of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were clear that they didn't intend for the document to solely refer to favoritism amongst Christians. Washington's letter to the Newport Synagogue was published for a reason. They genuinely meant that the government should be religiously neutral.
Zobel said:
that seems pretty fuzzy.
since these United States were originally a collection of sovereign entities (at least nominally) would you say that New Hampshire, Connecticut, or Massachusetts were doctrinally Christian?
Not since the Revolution of 1688. They kept some of the trappings of the Congregational past, but the laws became largely toothless and applied broadly. Not dissimilar to the Church of England.
Would you consider the 7 states that banned clergy from serving the legislature to be doctrinally atheist?
Quote:
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll see if I can get it from my local library. Just to make sure, the author is Rhys Isaac, correct?
Yes, excellent read. He was an Australian historian who took an interest in our past and did it better than many Americans.
I'd consider that wise (from both the secular and the religious perspectives), but most likely unConstitutional.Quote:
Would you consider the 7 states that banned clergy from serving the legislature to be doctrinally atheist?
it doesn't say that. it says:
Quote:
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
Thanks again. My library system does not have it so I put in an ILL request for it.Sapper Redux said:Quote:
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll see if I can get it from my local library. Just to make sure, the author is Rhys Isaac, correct?
Yes, excellent read. He was an Australian historian who took an interest in our past and did it better than many Americans.
As an aside, my guess is that most posters on this board read a lot. If you've not used your library's ILL (Inter-Library Loan) program, you should. You can get almost anything through it. For example, for the last 3 years I dove deeply into the question of the archaeological evidence regarding the Exodus and the Conquest. Without intending to, I obtained, read, and outlined about 1,200 scholarly articles and several hundred scholarly books on the topics. I did subscribe to 2-3 scholarly journals, but much of the best material is in Festschrifts, volumes from conferences, and similar one-off publications. I was able to obtain anything I needed through my local country library's ILL program. Some of the books I requested had only 2-3 copies in the entire US, but scholarly libraries like UPenn shipped them to us without question. It's truly a fantastic resource.
it seems then that "doctrinally xyz" is just an arbitrary distinction. if they have codified laws that make their official state religion some particular brach you say it's trappings, toothless. if they don't have codified laws but instead the very fabric of the nation is steeped explicitly in a religion, you say it's not official.
as a rule clergy were not allowed to hold political office in the Byzantine empire. are they doctrinally atheist?
as a rule clergy were not allowed to hold political office in the Byzantine empire. are they doctrinally atheist?
Zobel said:
it doesn't say that. it says:Quote:
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
What do you think a statement like this means in the 18th century when every European state has an official church and supports it to the discrimination (at different levels of severity) of other faiths? Combined with the Constitution allowing no religious tests whatsoever?
I think it means what it says. Liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship is recognized as a natural right versus something permitted, and the US government doesn't permit bigotry or persecution.
Featured Stories
See All
11:37
43m ago
587
85:33
21h ago
5.8k
25:08
4h ago
899
Texas A&M earns top-25 win over Creighton in Las Vegas, 77-73
by Luke Evangelist