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

[research]

Romney and his brand of fanatics like to claim the founding fathers were fanatical Christians. Not based on what they wrote!

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

[cognate]

It's a measure of Americans' ignorance that Christianity can be attributed with impunity to the founders of the republic.

[factanonverba]

The truth is that several of the original colonies were founded as a Christian enterprise, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia all had an established Church, the Anglican church. Massachusetts as well in a Congregational System. Connecticut was also a mono-religious colony. Pennsylvania was the only colony that from the start offered complete freedom of religion. Rhode Island was founded by dissenters and New York had a mix of Dutch and English faiths that learned to live with another. That's in the early colonial period but by 1760 through the end of the 18th century, there is a clearly a move indeed largely led by clergy and dissenters to separate church and state. The South, ironically, did it first. Virginia in 1789 and the rest of the South shortly after. Connecticut only in 1818-20 and Massachusetts finally separated Church and State in 1833. How Connecticut and Massachusetts managed to circumvent "the establishment clause" of the Constitution, I am really not sure, but here is a link to a Yale University abstract on Religious Tolerance and the Separation of Civil and Ecclesiastical Interests.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1980/cthistory/80.ch.03.x.html

[JWakkaJane]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

"respect":

1: a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation
2: an act of giving particular attention : consideration
3 a: high or special regard : esteem b: the quality or state of being esteemed cplural : expressions of respect or deference
4: particular, detail
" in respect of
chiefly British : with respect to : concerning
" in respect to
: with respect to : concerning
" with respect to
: with reference to : in relation to

[JWakkaJane]

First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That would be no law like this one Congress just passed? The imbecils!!:

GovTrack: H. Res. 847: -Text of Legislation -
section 4:
"acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization"

"respecting":
2 : with respect to : concerning

"supporting":
1: to endure bravely or quietly : bear
2 a (1): to promote the interests or cause of
(2): to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate
(3): to argue or vote for
b (1): assist, help
(2): to act with (a star actor)
(3): to bid in bridge so as to show support for
c: to provide with substantiation : corroborate
3 a: to pay the costs of : maintain
b: to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of

[moderationsmuse]

I enjoyed this essay, but I'm not sure I see the point of it. There are very definite and strong Christian ideas that underpin the American government. For instance, the structure of the government is the same as the structure of the Presbyterian Church. And the idea of the primacy of the individual owes much of its force to the Christian idea of the soul before God and the Christian idea of each person having intrinsic worth.

Ironically, missing from this essay is also the very contemporary tendency to treat the Constitution itself as a religious document -- for instance the concept of "rights" has undergriding it an idea that various claims have support from something more enduring and substantial than merely "the consent of the governed."

And the country has changed radically. Various immigrant groups have alterred the character of the US over its national lifespan and will, no doubt, continue to do so. The entry of African-Americans into the mix as stake holders may well involved a Christianizing of politics, and the influx of Hispanics into American life also.

Islam may also play an influential role in the future of American politics, one that should be watched carefully for one sees the effects of Islam in Europe, particularly in France and Great Britian, and it gives one pause.

In any case, the absence of religiousity from the lives of the first Federalists is not a reason for supposing that religious thought will not affect American life now -- or for supposing it was ineffectual in the past.

One could argue that many of the Enlightment's enlighted ideas were drawing on the stored capital of a long history of Christianity in Europe.

[Charles TW]

I agree that no religious test should be given to hold political office. But I totally reject out of hand the notion that a candidate should not be tested as to how his religion will affect his or her ability to govern.

At best Mormonism is an insulated, secretive, race based sect that tends to present itself more as a hybrid of Christianity and than a Christian faith. The question is not whether or not the Mormons gave up poligamy to join the union, but to what extent is it still part of their theological dna. The question is not whether or not Mormons are reaching out for converts throughout the world, but to what extent this reaching out have to do with seriously accepting these converts as equal members of their fold, or simply as a means to swell their treasure in Utah. The Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred over a hundred fifty years ago, but no official remorse or contrition has flowed from the Mormon leadership.
These and many, many other legitimate concerns about the Mormon faith must be addressed by Mitt Romney before he should be considered seriously for the highest office in the land.

www.charlestwilliams.com

[knosiswar]

Please dont let people confuse the Masonic order of our forefathers for the Masons of the middle 1800's that was infected by the Illuminate groups that subverted the organisation. I think I understand why public education is underfunded and college education is kept out of the reach of most potential tax-payers and voters, and even still, why the quality of that education is suspect for some of those that seek one.

[Presidentclouseau]

It is necessary to the religious right's conflating of religion and patriotism that they they distort the plain intent of the founders to keep religion out of government. Their evidence usually is the "endowed by the Creator" phrase in the Declaration--which is Deist language--and reference to "Providence"--a watered-down concession to religious belief equating roughly to "luck." Sad to say, keeping religion out of government, which is essential to the Constitution--is not the same as keeping religion out of politics. Bottom line, its tough to get elected by claiming to be an atheist.

[cindysundancer]

Thank you for this thoughtful post. I agree that government needs to be protected from religion AND religion needs to be protected from the government.
Karen Armstrong, who has written many wonderful books on the world's five great religions, says they all have been distorted and mis-used, many evils done in their name. But that in pure form they all promote the golden rule. I am both a devout and tolerant Christian. I believe there is more than one way to the top of the mountain. But my Christian faith is the obvious path to get there. It's easy to mock Christians. And God gives us the free will and choice to turn away from Him. But until you have given Bible study a chance, and felt the presence of the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, I suggest you refrain.
We rebelled against authority in the 60's and 70's, tore down many barriers and walls. But we replaced the old morality with....what? We are wired for worship, and we all worship something.....usually consumer products now, or ourselves. That's what you get when you get your morals from TV! I say take your kids to the tolerant church, mosque, or temple of your choice! Let them see there is more to life than greed, selfishness, and indulgence.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Speaking as a heathen, I think it's high time
to have an earnest discussion about organized
religion. Now, unload that, and don't point it
at me, 'cause I just want to speak my piece,
not on a Crusade(R) or a Mission(R) etc.

I have no problem, qualm nor quarrel about or
with people that want to get a little closer
to a Higher Power. If it makes you feel better
to believe in the Invisible Man, by all means,
knock yourself out, just be sure to replace
your divots etc. I don't, however, intend to
participate in your religious rituals.

When I was a kid, I had the (mis)fortune
to attend a religious school. It was really
interesting how suddenly math and science
involved Jesus.

I've authored a little ditty about the whole
thing which I will share with you now:

Jesus is my buddy
Jesus is my pal
If ya don't believe in Jesus
Then you can go to HAL.

HAL's like, the crazy supercomputer on the
spaceship in 2001: A Space Odyssey that goes
nuts and tries to kill David Bowman. It was
a pretty cool movie except for that 60's
psychedelic thing there, at the end. Anyway...

I never missed church in the last 30 years of
my life, and they haven't missed me either,
as far as I can tell, of course having a
godless heathen nonbeliever in your ranks is
kind of well, an Inconvenient Circumstance,
when everyone else has their eyes closed,
you can run around and pick their pockets,
but the guy who doesn't shut both eyes and
has a trucker's wallet with a chain on it,
that's the guy that catches you in the act,
and then suddenly you're on the front page
getting busted for drugs or something and
the guys from the IRS show up and then it just
gets ugly from there...

[NoFactsJustTruth]

BRAVO, Mr. Stone, MOST excellent!

A common occurrance these days is the conservative religious right twisting history and TRUTH to suit rationalizations of their personal fairy tale, thereby justifying their hypocritical judgmentalism.

WYou essay is wonderful history that leaves revisionists with little more than their closed mind and a, "No it wasn't".

[SD61]

Well stated, Mr. Stone. What's amazing is that even your measured tones in this essay will be construed as blasphemous and anti-American by literally millions.

And although I understand your reason for including this statement:

"They understood that religion could help nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society."

... I think it's high time that we discard what you and the Founders termed "fables" as necessary guides for public morality. They most certainly are NOT necessary guides.

[LynneM]

At the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the authors had witnessed the injustices that resulted when King George III consigned to himself the authority to infringe upon the rights of English citizens. They therefore inaugurated an event unparalleled in world history: the founding of a nation governed according the principle that no mortal monarch could deprive the people of their right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness bestowed by "the Creator".

Today that means that if, say, an American general were to get the idea that he had the right to launch a coup and set himself up as ruler, we have a legal basis in this country to say to the wayward general, "Someone of a higher authority than you says, "No you don"t."" Without God"s authority, there is no one on earth who can trump a potentate with an army who wants to overturn the laws that give us our freedom. It is God alone who is capable of giving us the rights that no 21st century King George can deny, and therefore it is God who must always be acknowledged as the source of the laws of any country wanting to retain those rights.

Our founding fathers knew this ideal was tenuous, and therefore reasoned that as long as God was kept front and center of this nation, the American people would continue in their understanding that because He was the ultimate King of this nation, that they had the right to just say no to any prospective dictator who might try to take their liberty from them. Thus, ultimately these men understood that the slippery slope that they might have been creating by retaining an official allegiance to the Creator of our freedoms"ie. the possibility that certain sectarian groups would attempt to make their God the official one"was not so dangerous for the sustainability of the principles of our country as the slippery slope that would have been created by removing God from His official central position at the core of American democracy.

[Durango]

Something that is generally lacking in these discussions is that Seperation of Church and State was designed to protect the Church.

Wars were fought over prayer books and the state determined what prayers could be said.

The Founders recognized this and tried to prevent it. The bottom line is: if you want the state to promote your religion then I as a member of the state but not your religion will have to have a say in how you practice it.

And you really don't want that happening.

Seperation of Church and State was demanded by at least a couple of prominent Babtist Ministers. Babtists, after all, suffered tremendously for their beliefs, being imprisoned, tortured and murdered for their nonconformity with the established curches.

So it is trendously ironic that many present day Babtists are trying to tear down the wall of seperation.