By: Jim Gifford Re: Debate analysis: Part 1 (Threads you originate get letters; those I st
By: Jim Gifford
Re: Debate analysis: Part 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Threads you originate get letters; those I start get numbers. See?)
I think that too many of the arguments that have been put forth by both you and
others are shooting wide of the mark. Rather than tediously counter each point,
as I've done in my replies to your posts, I'll open my argument with a summary
of what I believe to be a reasonably accurate overview of the issue. Feel free
to spin each and any of these points off into a thread of its own:
1) The US was founded by persons of Christian heritage and
teaching, but not as an explicity "Christian" nation. The text of
the Constitution makes this abundantly clear. With the sole
exception of the dating line containing the (rhetorical) phrase
"in the year of our Lord," there is no mention whatsoever of a
deity, or of religious preferences or beliefs. The sole mention of
this topic anywhere in the complete Constitution is in the first
Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
...which is an energetic rejection of any notion of Christianity
as the state religion. The Constitution is the base legal document
of the United States. It was hammered out in compromise after
compromise over four grueling summer months. All law, all
governmental principles in this country ultimately rests on this
document, and no other. *And it contains not one mention of
Christianity.*
Had the founding fathers intended to form a Christian nation, they
could have at the very least inserted one or more of the following
phrases into the preamble, at which point the argument I am making
would be absolutely invalid:
"We the People of the United States[, guided by God], in
order to form a more perfect union[ under God] establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty[ and our Lord] to ourselves and
our Posterity, do[ by the grace of God] ordain and establish
[ in the name of our Lord] this Constitution for the
[ Christian nation of the] United States of America."
I don't need to point out again that no such phrases appear
anywhere in the Constitution or its amendments. That, to me, is
conclusive evidence that the 55 delegates to the Convention and the
39 who finally signed the document absolutely did not intend the US
to be founded as an explicitly "Christian" nation, no matter what
their personal beliefs.
I feel that any attempt to second-guess the clear nature of the
Constitution by applying Christian or Christian-deist quotes from
the founders, or other extraneous arguments such as state-founded
churches (all of which were spun off or disbanded), is pure
malarkey on the part of those who would benefit from promoting the
notion that the US was founded as a devout Christian nation whose
problems stem solely from a "fall" from that "grace."
2) The beliefs of men change over their lives. That's true for you,
for me, for Thomas Jefferson, for Franklin, for Adams, for
everyone. Almost no one holds the exact same set of beliefs at 40
that they do at 20, or at 60. Thus, quoting TJ at 25, even on a
similar subject, is not completely valid when his writings of the
Constitutional era demonstrate a completely different set of
beliefs.
3) Christianity has changed, evolved and splintered incalcuably over
its 2000-year history. This includes Christian-derived religious
belief subsets such as deism and agnosticism. It is not possible to
determine the beliefs of a particular historical figure without
understanding the status of his stated beliefs in context of his
era and milieu. Analyzing a quote from Franklin in 20th-century
deist or fundamentalist terms is a null argument. The meaning has
shifted so radically that validly analyzing historical phrases and
quotes in a different era's context is not possible. This is
something that all too many historians, both amateur and
professional, misunderstand.
4) [in light of #s 2 and 3] The era of the founding fathers
(approximately 1725-1800) was an era of great religious turmoil
(intellectual turmoil, rather than wars, for a change). The
doctrines of deism, atheism and freethinking were in their infancy
(modern infancy). It is not surprising that men who were raised in
a Christian milieu, with even secular studies centered on scripture
and a general atmosphere of Christianity being "the only way" (as
opposed to Judaism or Islam), expressed their deist and freethinker
beliefs in a manner tinged with Christian language, symbology and
thinking. It is not surprising that, as of some fixed date, each
did not drop Christianity like a hot potato and began espousing a
pure atheist or non-Christian deist theology.
What is quite clear is that the beliefs of many of these men
evolved from Christian beginnings (I do not know of any one that
was not at least nominally raised as a Christian, save the two
Jewish signers) to freethinking Christian, to Christian deist, to
deist, to agnosticism, to atheism. Not all expressed all these
steps in their writings, and not all made it past the freethinking
stage, but a surprising number were expressing very non-Christian
deist thinking in their later lives. (Franklin, for example--
examine his quotes on religion from early middle age through his
death. The progression is clear. The progression is even more
striking for Adams and TJ.)
5) Most of the signers were business men and those in positions of
public trust. It is not safe, in any era, to express radical
beliefs if you wish to have the business of the community at large.
When you compare the public writings of many of these men with
their private letters, a subtle-to-sharp dichotomy often appears.
In public, they espouse vague Christian principles where needed "to
ensure the domestic tranquillity"
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank