1

Thanks for doing this.

I don't understand why, in explaining the category "Orthodox Christians," you say that they "Rejected orthodox Christian beliefs."

2

Interesting post. I haven't read Holmes' book, nor is it on my reading list, but one issue you don't mention and he may not take into account is Freemasonry. Several of the founders were serious Freemasons (Washington himself being the prime example), and Freemasonry as a discipline will have certain moderating effects on how one displays one's public religious life. On the other hand, Freemasonry requires faith in God for membership and its rituals are drawn directly from the Bible. I can't share specific examples of these rituals, but Duncan's Rituals provides descriptions that are more or less consistent with ritual at that time.

3

Yes, Joe, I had the same question as Martin LaBar. Why orthodox christian if they rejected ortho beliefs? Is that a typo?

This is a very helpful post. It definitely puts the founders in perspective. I'm not sure that it clears up where the founders would be on most of the major issues today. The kinds of people who are unitarians today are generally far lefties. However, it's hard to believe that the founders would fall into the far left camp. I suppose that now all the "historians" who usually post here will tell us how the founders would be leftists, and thereby attempt to destroy any clarity that your post has given on the subject.

4

Excellent post. I happen to be reading this book now and have found it to be one of the most even-handed of all the books on this contentious subject.

There is one sentence in the post I take issue with: "The views of the Deistically-inclined founding fathers would have been as repugnant to the modern secularist as those of the 'Christian Right.'" It is true that an atheist would disagree with the personal views of these men. But these leaders are far less objectionable because they did not attempt to have the government endorse Christianity in the way that many of the religious right advocate. After his presidency, Madison expressed the view that the federal government should not have even had official days of prayer or chaplains in the military. I don't think any of them would have sided with Alabama's Roy Moore or favored the funding of faith-based charities.

5

Good post, I think I'll check this book out.

6

Interesting.

A question: What does it mean to say that Deistic Christians "rejected the Lord's Supper". Did you mean they rejected communion? Is "Lord's Supper" another name for communion? I read it as another name for "the Last Supper", but I may be getting the terms mixed up. The Last Supper was just the last meal before the crucifixion; Catholics and Protestants disagree about what communion does, but I would have thought anyone, even atheists, could "accept" the Last Supper (in the sense that there was one).

A comment: The "religious right" certainly inspires a lot of repugnance, but I don't think it's their general religious views (of the kind you discuss above) that is the reason. Rather, it's the hostility they express through those views, and their insistence that everyone else has to live by their (rather extremist) beliefs, that angers people. No doubt the secular left would reject many of the views of the Deistic Christians you list above, but it's very unlikely they would find those people repugnant. (In fact, it's impossible, unless those people are so vastly unlike their historical characters that they would be unrecognizable in real life. All of the people you name, and Jefferson especially, are held in high regard by progressives, including atheists.) Jefferson's remark that "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" precisely expresses the secular liberal attitude toward religion - but it is one that would certainly be repugnant to the religious right.

7

What I would want to look at is not whether I felt I could accurately judge the private religious convictions of the founding fathers, but whether I could align the tenets of scripture with the tenets of the founding fathers doctrinal documents that structure our government. Are the structures of our goverernment based upon Unitarian or Deist ideals/ideas or are they articulated by uniquely Christian doctrinal ones?

That is the acid test for me.

Then I would know what is necessary to preserve in order to preserve the outcomes such documents outline for our system of government and Civitas.

8

Unless this book deals with Peter Lillback's massive study on Washington that came out in '06--in which Lillback argues that Washington was indeed an orthodox, Trinitarian Christian based on a 15 year study of the evidence--it would be hard to take this otherwise refried conventional wisdom on Washington's religious views too seriously.

9

What does it mean to say that Deistic Christians "rejected the Lord's Supper". Did you mean they rejected communion? Is "Lord's Supper" another name for communion?

Yes and yes.

10

ex-preacher,

I agree with your assessment on the Founding Fathers. I don't think anyone has mounted a case that they were atheists. Trying to figure out where they would stand on modern policy issues is, in my opinion, rather silly.

I'm currently reading William Durant's The Age of Reason Begins (volumn 7 of his History of Civilization....on a whim I picked it up for $0.35 from a local used bookstore's last chance shelf). What is fascinating is how bloody the politics of religion was in England during the time of Elizabeth, Shakespear and Cromwell. The break witht he Catholic Church resulted in a series of vicious anti-Catholic laws designed to root out "papists". After a long series of people being hauled before inquisitions, being fined for failing to attend the 'official Church', and spending decades in the Tower (or worse) it isn't surprising to see how some people became very jaded when the subject of religion came up and yearned for a 'hands off' stance.

Needless to say Protestantism in England broke into its own set of numerous denominations seemingly at war with each other all the time.

The Founders, being Englishmen first, probably inherited a great skepticism of gov't being too supportive of any religious denomination. So while they were not atheists they probably were inclined towards secularism more than many on the religious right would care to admit.

11

The "religious right" certainly inspires a lot of repugnance, but I don't think it's their general religious views (of the kind you discuss above) that is the reason. Rather, it's the hostility they express through those views, and their insistence that everyone else has to live by their (rather extremist) beliefs, that angers people.

With such a confident and sweeping statement you no doubt have dozens of solid, convincing examples of how this is true... right?

The point most conservative Christians have regarding the founding fathers is that they all held a philosophy and worldview that was strongly, powerfully founded on and informed by Judeo-Christian theism, which is in great opposition to most modern thinkers.

12

One has to wonder how the various founders would have reacted to the theory of evolution. In many cases these folks were highly "reasonable" men. Many were steeped in the philosphical arts. I'd like to suggest that many of our most influential founders were highly progressive when it came to faith, even in the context of American culture, and most certainly in the context of general Western Culture.

I suspect that even the Diests among the founders would have embraced the notion of evolution and natural selection had they had access to the theory.

That said, someone above makes note that they want to look at how the founders infused the founding documents with religion to get a good look at how they viewed the relationship between religion and statecraft. I agree. This is really the intersting and pertinent issue. The argument tends to be over the question: "to what extent is the U.S. a "christian country".

That's a loaded question and demands a great deal of definition. But even after that hard work has been done, we can evaluate the degree to which the founders thought religion ought to play a role in crafting the organs of state and informing the business of governing.

13

On the contrary Christsopher, the Founders' worldview was strongly and powerfully founded on the folloy of trying to make the state a servant of Judeo-Christian theism. They were hardly in great opposition to most modern thinkers, they were in fact the foundation of many modern thinkers!

14

CT writes

"The point most conservative Christians have regarding the founding fathers is that they all held a philosophy and worldview that was strongly, powerfully founded on and informed by Judeo-Christian theism, which is in great opposition to most modern thinkers."

This is true, but it doesn't really make any contribution to any particular issue. It doesn't take into account other worldviews that the founders held firmly to, it doesn't speak to the issue of where religion and govt. should intersect, it doesn't address why the founders chose not to advocate religion or chrisianity in any meaningful way in the constitution. But most important, it doesn't take into account the fact that the Founders were operating without all the information that we currently have regarding the way the world works.

In this respect the founders were somewhat more ignorant than most 8th graders of today's public schools.

15

Martin I don't understand why, in explaining the category "Orthodox Christians," you say that they "Rejected orthodox Christian beliefs."

Sorry, that was a typo. It should read “Accepted orthodox Christian beliefs…”

JD I'm not sure that it clears up where the founders would be on most of the major issues today.

Richard Brookhiser has an interesting new book that covers that topic, What Would the Founders Do?, in which he argues analogically about how the founders would deal with today’s issues.

ex-preacher But these leaders are far less objectionable because they did not attempt to have the government endorse Christianity in the way that many of the religious right advocate.

The problem the left has with Christians is not that we want government to “endorse Christianity” but that we advocate for certain moral policies. The founders would have vehemently opposed many of the pet issues of the left (e.g., gay rights).

After his presidency, Madison expressed the view that the federal government should not have even had official days of prayer or chaplains in the military.

And Washington supported official prayer and chaplains. The founders did not all hold the same opinions on how government should relate to religion. But they all believed that religiously-based moral views were the foundation of legislation.

I don't think any of them would have sided with Alabama's Roy Moore or favored the funding of faith-based charities.

If you really believe that then I’d suggest doing a bit more homework. Many of the founders would have been more inclined to support the view of Roy Moore than I would.

Is "Lord's Supper" another name for communion? I read it as another name for "the Last Supper", but I may be getting the terms mixed up.

Yes, the terms “Lord’s Supper” and communion are basically synonymous. The “Last Supper” refers explicitly to the original event that communion is modeled on.

…I would have thought anyone, even atheists, could "accept" the Last Supper (in the sense that there was one).

Some groups (Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans) believe that the communion wafer takes on mystical properties. Other groups (e.g., Southern Baptist) believe it is purely symbolic. But all agree that only professing, repentant Christians should partake of communion.

No doubt the secular left would reject many of the views of the Deistic Christians you list above, but it's very unlikely they would find those people repugnant.

The positions of these “Deistic Christians” (a troubling term) would have been even more rigid than those of the modern Religious Right. You can hardly pick an issue that is favored by the left (e.g., gay marriage, abortion, sexual libertinism) that these guys would not find repugnant.

(In fact, it's impossible, unless those people are so vastly unlike their historical characters that they would be unrecognizable in real life. All of the people you name, and Jefferson especially, are held in high regard by progressives, including atheists.)

Well, the fact is that most people are historically ignorant and have only hagiographic impressions of the founders. The founders were all too human. Even during their own period some of them held views that were considered extreme and “unprogressive.” You can’t gloss over Jefferson’s racism. And his support of the illiberal violence during the French Revolution is nothing short of chilling.

I dare say that if Jefferson were around today that you would despise not only the man’s politics but his character as well.

Jefferson's remark that "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" precisely expresses the secular liberal attitude toward religion - but it is one that would certainly be repugnant to the religious right.

How so? Jefferson’s comment was made to the evangelicals of his day. Religious tolerance is still one of the cornerstones of evangelical faith.

Perhaps you should examine what we really think rather than basing your assertions on second hand opinions.

John Unless this book deals with Peter Lillback's massive study on Washington that came out in '06--in which Lillback argues that Washington was indeed an orthodox, Trinitarian Christian based on a 15 year study of the evidence--it would be hard to take this otherwise refried conventional wisdom on Washington's religious views too seriously.

I haven’t read Lillback’s 1169 page doorstopper—and I suspect you haven’t either. I have read summaries of the book, however, and it sounds like Lillback is guilty of the type of historical revisionism that Christians decry when it comes from the left.

No serious historian would claim that Washington was an “orthodox, Trinitarian Christian.” If he was it cannot be gleaned from the historical evidence. We simply should not claim for the man what he refused to claim of himself.

When rumors circulated after Washington’s death that he had become a pious Christian his contemporaries (including Jefferson and Madison) refuted the claim. His own pastor responded by saying, “Sir, he was a Deist.” Does Lillback really know more about Washington's beliefs than did his own pastor?

16

The positions of these “Deistic Christians” (a troubling term) would have been even more rigid than those of the modern Religious Right. You can hardly pick an issue that is favored by the left (e.g., gay marriage, abortion, sexual libertinism) that these guys would not find repugnant.

Doubtful, to really know this you would have to pretend these people lived through the last 200 years of history and then try to guess how they would see our world through their eyes. Yes if you could catch them in, say, 1785 and ask them about gay marriage you probably wouldn't get an endorsement of the MA SC ruling. But to get a true opinion you'd have to inform them on the Constitutional concept of Equal Protection as it was introduced after the Civil War and applied since then and you'd also have to inform them of changing attitudes of sexuality over time....in other words you'd have to try to predict based on what we know of them in the late 1700's how they would view the world over the last 200 years.

If you took a snapshot of their opinions during their lives, for example, they clearly felt that slavery should be tolerated (if only for the sake of the Union). Yet knowing their support for individual liberty it is probably a safe bet that if we could speak to them today, after they have been briefed on the last 200 years, they would probably not object to the fact that slavery has long been abolished and blacks are equal before the law.

Of course that is just a guess but it does seem to be a bit more honest than trying to say we betrayed what the Founders wanted by abolishing slavery. It's more honest than trying to argue that the Civil Rights movement was wrong to depict itself as continuing the line the Founders started rather than going against it.

While we can make such a judgement on some matters I seriously doubt anyone can convincingly argue what the Founders would feel about many social issues today.

17

"I dare say that if Jefferson were around today that you would despise not only the man’s politics but his character as well."

If Jefferson were alive today he would have had the benefit of a modern education, both scientific and moral. What must be asked is how would Jefferson's essential character have led him to react to the modern world and the issues we deal with today.

I suspect the inclination toward reason, progressivism, secularism and fairness in his character would have led him to have written the modern manifesto on individual rights that declared our bodies are our own and can not be appropriated by whims of a prudish constituency. Furthermore, I can see Jefferson declaring that the State has no business pronouncing judgement on the character of anyone's interpersonal relationships and ought to be out of the "marriage business" altogether.

18

Ah, okay. I haven't read all of it, and neither have you. So therefore, it need not be dealt with. You haven't read the book, but you assert that Washington's orthodoxy cannot be gleaned from the historical record, which is of course begging the question. Because Lillback's book is so in-depth, we need not bother with it when figuring out Washington's religious beliefs. Makes sense to me! Hundreds of pages of primary source "revisionism."

And yes, Lillback deals with the pastor's quote, as well as all of Washington's own correspondence, as well as that of many who knew him.

19

Also, of course, the issue, as I mentioned before, is not whether you've read Lillback's book, but whether the author interacts with it.

The fact is, any responsible historian wishing now to assert Washington's supposed deism will at least have to interact with Lillback's exhaustive, meticulously documented "doorstopper" if we're to believe his work is anything more than the refried beans of Paul Boeller's book from the '30's.

The fact is, the Washington-as-deist thesis is one that develops in the mid-20th century, making it the "revisionist" history. Whether one comes to agree with Lillback or not, to simply dismiss his book as not being serious history is question-begging at its worst. If a supposed scholar refuses to address Lillback's argument, I know I can dismiss said scholar's argument prima facie.

20

Hello everybody,

I'm impressed with the civil tone of this comment thread. It is a reflection of the thoughtful and balanced post that Joe has written -- thanks, Joe.

Here's what I think:

The beliefs of the founders are a very interesting topic. Their beliefs are often hard to pin down exactly, but it's a worthwhile history project.

As an atheist, I would prefer to know that President Washington was a deist instead of an Anglican. And I would prefer to know that he was an atheist instead of a Deist, but I'll take whatever seems to be indicated by the historical record.

[President Bush is a very sympatico person and leader to me, and it doesn't bother me at all that he is an evangelical Christian.]

The ideals of liberty and of a secular state grew up out of the Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs of the West. It is not therefore a historical earthquake to learn that all the founding fathers were at least Deists, and that many were Christian as well.

However, the past 230 years have seen an explosion of growth in so many fields of knowledge and belief. This revolution in our understanding of the world has pushed our society to question our inherited religious beliefs, and many of us even jump into full-blown atheism as a result. I believe atheism today is a natural and logical product of the intellectual and spiritual currents that were dominant in America and Europe at the time of our founding.

A radical Deist like Tom Paine, for example, would quite likely have been very comfortable nowadays eschewing all belief in a divinity.

In any case, while I myself study the beliefs of the founders in order to analyze the source of their wisdom and civic virtue, their beliefs were of course a product of their times, and do not have to serve as a basis of what people will want to believe in later generations. Just like the Bible, we pick out and keep the good things for ourselves and put aside the not-so-good stuff as historical novelties or artifacts.

We even do that to a certain extent with the U.S. Constitution, through the dual mechanisms of amendments and the changing interpretations of constitutional law (which in turn are driven by a wide range of historical events, such as the Civil War).

The only thing I don't like about Joe's post (although from one perspective, it is a kind of endearing personal tic) is his insistence on calling Deists "heretics". Joe, if you believe in freedom of conscience, and you claim you do, then the term "heretic" does not jive with your beliefs.

Someone who doesn't buy into your version of Christ and the Bible narrative is not a heretic, he is just someone who disagrees with you. I hope someday you will learn to relax a little about these sorts of things.

It can't be healthy to sit in judgement of the whole world and divvy up and sort every individual you encounter into one of the classes of true believers versus heretics. That's the kind of thinking that gets our jihadi brothers and sisters into trouble.

Happy New Year, all!

21

Mathew Goggins wrote: "President Bush is a very sympatico person and leader to me, and it doesn't bother me at all that he is an evangelical Christian."

What does 'sympatico' mean? I have never heard this word, nor can I think of a similar word you may have meant to use.

22

Joe writes: “The problem the left has with Christians is not that we want government to “endorse Christianity” but that we advocate for certain moral policies.”

Not so, Joe. I have no problem with people advocating moral policies. In fact, I like to think that I advocate certain moral policies myself. What I object to is a group trying to impose its religious practices on everyone else. I have no problem with Mitt Romney trying to advance the pro-life agenda because of his beliefs (although I differ with him).

What I would object to would be an effort by Romney to outlaw the sale of caffeinated beverages. I don’t want the government funding any faith-based agencies, whether those agencies are Christian, Muslim, Satanist or Scientologist. I don’t want the government posting the commandments of any religious group, whether Jewish or humanist. I don’t want teacher-led school prayer or readings of holy books, whether the prayers and readings are Buddhist or Catholic. I don’t want my currency inscribed with anyone’s religious beliefs. I don’t want the pledge of allegiance to have either “one nation under God” or “one nation under no gods.” I prefer the original: “one nation.”

Joe writes: “The founders would have vehemently opposed many of the pet issues of the left (e.g., gay rights).” and “Many of the founders would have been more inclined to support the view of Roy Moore than I would.” and “You can hardly pick an issue that is favored by the left (e.g., gay marriage, abortion, sexual libertinism) that these guys would not find repugnant.”

I agree with Boonton that we can’t really project what the views of the founders would be on today’s issues. The world has changed a great deal in the 200 years. It would be fascinating to bring the founders back to life and find out their views on current debates, but it is absurd to try to predict their positions on issues such as stem cell research, Roe v. Wade, the minimum wage, global warming, gay rights, illegal immigration, evolution, or the war in Iraq. Personally, I tend to think they wouldn’t all agree with each other. I do know that they all were considered radicals and progressives by some of their peers.

I have a sneaking suspicion that their main reaction to being asked to pontificate on such matters would be: “Why do you think we know the answers? Do you think we are gods? Sure, we knew we were smart, but we didn’t expect anyone to fixate on our opinions for so long. Use your own brains.”

Joe writes: “But they all believed that religiously-based moral views were the foundation of legislation.”

Gimme a break. You have worded this carefully, so I’m not sure what you’re saying, but if you’re implying that the Constitution is somehow based on the Bible, I beg to differ. You yourself have said that the type of government favored by Jesus was a monarchy.

Joe writes: “Religious tolerance is still one of the cornerstones of evangelical faith.”

This is a huge surprise. So you have no problem with a Muslim swearing in on the Qur’an? Please elucidate.

Joe writes: “Perhaps you should examine what we really think rather than basing your assertions on second hand opinions.”

Well put. May I make the modest proposal that you do the same? You and many of the regulars around here are constantly telling us what “the Left” thinks, believes, plans to do and their motives based on your own speculation or the words of a few extremists. How about dealing with what we actually say instead of cherry-picking quotes from oddballs? I propose this as a New Year’s resolution for all of us.

23

I think the fact remains here that secularism (defined as gov't being neutral to religion) as it exists today is more in line with the direction the founders pointed us in rather than against it. It is interesting to speculate how close Jefferson, Washington and others would be to our positions today but I think it hasn't been established that the US of today is a rejection of the philosophy of the founders.

Ex-
What I would object to would be an effort by Romney to outlaw the sale of caffeinated beverages....

Which Romney probably wouldn't want either (coffee is still legal in Utah but they make it hard to get a nice cold beer). Even a theocracy has its limits. I would object to two things:

1. Policies that are justified only by reference to religious dogmas. There are arguments for making it hard to buy a beer that do not require you to be a believing Mormon or Muslim to accept. Those that advocate policies for religious reasons should be expected to meet the test of presenting arguments that do not require one to be a member of their religion to accept.

2. The argument that the US is either a 'Christian nation' or founded upon Christianity.

#2 is probably going to be more objectionable. This is because Christianists still tend to be more 'warm and fuzzy' than their brothers the Islamists in the Middle East. While the US is and has always been demographically dominated by Christians of various types and Western culture has been heavily influenced by Christianity the US was not founded as a Christian nation nor is the goal of its government the promotion of Christianity. (Contrast this with, say, Vatican City which is explicitly a Catholic nation even though it is tolerant of non-Catholics or Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. which are Islamic nations which are intolerant).

24

Drew I.--"Sympatico" means congenial or of like tastes. Mr. Goggins is saying that he is comfortable with George W. Bush as president.

25

"
The only thing I don't like about Joe's post (although from one perspective, it is a kind of endearing personal tic) is his insistence on calling Deists "heretics". Joe, if you believe in freedom of conscience, and you claim you do, then the term "heretic" does not jive with your beliefs."

While I can't speak for Joe, I'm pretty certain he uses the term "heretic" in a technical sense, meaning outside the orthodoxy of a particular christian sect.

26

Drew,

Ken has explained my meaning.

"Simpatico" is a word borrowed from Spanish (I should have used an "i", not a "y", in the first syllable).

In Spanish, "simpatico" means "nice", "likeable", "friendly", "kind", and so on. So when I said President Bush was simpatico, I just meant that I like him a lot, I think he's a great guy. Or as Ken said, his attitudes, tastes, policies are congenial to my own.

Darwin,

While I can't speak for Joe, I'm pretty certain he uses the term "heretic" in a technical sense, meaning outside the orthodoxy of a particular christian sect.

Well, the Spanish and Roman Inquistions used "heretic" in a technical sense too, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

When Joe says someone is a heretic, he means that the person does not believe the truth of the Bible, he does not believe the truth of our salvation in Jesus Christ, and as a result, that person is going straight to hell when he expires.

Like I said, this is the kind of thinking that gets our jihadi brothers and sisters into all kinds of mischief. Joe needs to stretch his brain a little bit and wrap it around the fact that people who disagree with him are not damned for all eternity as a result.

I'm not angry with Joe, I just feel a little sorry for him.

27

What I would object to is not someone proposing legislation based exclusively on, say, christian values. I'd ridicule the justification for the legislation, but I'd not suggest it can't or should not be proposed.

What I would, and what we all should, oppose is government endorsement of a specific world view. For example: prayer in school, funding religious tracts, any advocating by a govt. entity that christianity or islam or hinduism be practiced, or the display of religious symbolism on state property.

Finally, with regard to atheism, I think the recent publicity it has recieved recently is a huge step forward. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkinis and the popularity of their books have essentialy taken atheism out of the closet in a huge way. Now, it's true that they are both viewed as terribly agressive and strident atheists. This too is a good thing for the same reason that many activist, though not crazy, christians like having Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell around: These people make it safe for the merely emphatic christians. Dawkins and Harris make it safe for the merely public atheists.

In my mind, atheism equals reason and compassion and empathy. I believe these are traits of the most important sort that need to be promoted. I don't see that among the judgemental set of believers. If in the future we are going to see a serious and substantial debate about the nature of the world between atheists and christians this can't be anything but good and beneficial.

28

Mathhew:

If there were any indication that Joe's indentification of a heretic would lead to anything more than a discussion of theology and cannon law I might be worried. But I dont think anyone is in danger.

While I think identifying heretics is about worst use of one's time on earth, I do understand the motivation. By attempting to do so, the believer gets in better touch with their own notions of what they think is expected of them by either a church or a supernatural deity.

That said, if Joe's understanding of the nature of the universe is correct, and their is a god that damns people to hell, then he is correct, and probably responsible, in pointing out those who fall into the heretic category.

But again, from my perspective one could make far better use of their time if they spent their time snapping their fingers and clapping their hands with an insane smile on their face rather than thinking about what makes a heretic.

29

As someone else said, I'm surprised and pleased by the civil tone of this thread. However, in the spirit of realism, I suspect Joe's next post or at least one soon in the making will return to the extreme Christianist theme of this blog. I say this as a sort of challenge to Mr. Carter. I began reading his blog years ago because he didn't seem to be part of the Christianist (or hard core conservative) movement. To the contrary, Joe seemed to think for himself and write about issues of general concern from a personal point of view which attracted me to his thinking. Over time, though, he has seemed to fall into the slipstream of Hugh Hewitt, Dobson, and the rest with his frequent posts that appear to be more in the spirit of Karl Rove than Jesus Christ. I hope that I'm mistaken.

So, having noted the current civil tone as an exception, I'd like to point to Positive Liberty, a libertarnian blog where you will find a number of posts by Jonathan Rowe regarding our founding fathers' religious points of view. Click on Jonathan's name under "Posts by Author" to get a sample of his thinking.

30

Excellent post Joe. Yes, Holmes' book is great and anyone interested in seeing what I have come up which more or less confirms Holmes' thesis and methods of categorization, check out the link. The "Deistic Christians/Unitarians" was the dominant creed of the key Founding Fathers (it is what Dr. Gregg Frazer has termed "theistic rationalism").

Although I'm not sure if I agree that "[t]he views of the Deistically-inclined founding fathers would have been as repugnant to the modern secularist as those of the 'Christian Right.'" Maybe some secularists. Certainly not me. I actually find their belief system appealing because they seemed to worship a "kinder, gentler God" than the God of orthodox Christianity. But as both my atheist and Christian friends will tell me, just because something sounds nice doesn't mean it's true.

31

"Unless this book deals with Peter Lillback's massive study on Washington that came out in '06--in which Lillback argues that Washington was indeed an orthodox, Trinitarian Christian."

Lillback's book is activist scholarship. Washington was not, to the best of our knowledge, an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. I have read virtually everything Washington said on religion. Lillback's claim is laughable.

32

What's the concensus of the evangelicals on this blog about the intentions of the founding fathers?
Do most agree with Garry Wills who said,
"Disestablishment was the clear and unambiguous choice of the framers of the Constitution, most of whom were also serious Christians"
Or does anyone think the purpose of the constitution was to perpetuate a christian order?

I going with what Garry Wills said.

33

I always find it interesting what the authors tend to ignore when they psychoanalyze our founders.

For example, we have the fact that George Washington was a "vestryman" at his church. The author appears to ignore the requirement in Virginia law at the time that any county official be selected from among vestrymen of the local parish. "Vestryman" literally means simply "member."

As soon as Mason and Jefferson wrote the law getting rid of the requirement that people belong to THE church in order to take part in government, many of the Virginia founders stopped attending church.

And the author appears to ignore Washington's interesting practice of editing out the word "Jesus" in any document he ever signed, including the calls for days of Thanksgiving.

In the end, the issue of the founders' faith is more complex, and probably unsolvable; and the problem of whether this nation was intended to have official ties to any religion should probably be deferred to the laws they wrote. I find it difficult to believe that the founders really meant to include a church in government, but over the period from 1776 to 1826, they managed to "forget" that fact every single time they sat down to write a law.

34

Ex-preacher, you wrote:

"Joe writes: “Religious tolerance is still one of the cornerstones of evangelical faith.”

This is a huge surprise. So you have no problem with a Muslim swearing in on the Qur’an? Please elucidate."

I can't speak for Joe, but as an evangelical who happens to be fairly conservative politically, my reaction is: of course I have no problem with a Muslim swearing in on the Qur'an. (I'd be much more troubled by a Muslim swearing in on the Bible, because in that case I might doubt the sincerity of his oath.)

There's some fair number of us evangelicals who think Roger Williams really got a lot of things right. He was a vocal, doctrinaire Calvinist (who wasted no opportunity to tell the local Quakers, and others, how wrong they were theologically) who also strongly believed in disestablishment and free exercise as good for both the State and the Church. I have sharp disagreements with the "religious right" on a long list of policy matters because of what I understand scripture to say about the role of the state and my understanding of what constitutes a good work. The Church should not ask the State to do the Church's job. If I ever have a bumper sticker printed, it will show a cross and have the words, "Change hearts, not laws." I understand that there's a difference between a sin and a crime, and I've applied some amount of thought to which of the former should also be the latter. (That thought process has led me to soft-core libertarian outcomes.)

Maybe I'm just an outlier. If I'm not (and I think I have a significant, if not terribly vocal, amount of company), may I gently suggest that your understanding of evangelicals needs a bit more nuance.

35

Do most agree with Garry Wills who said, "Disestablishment was the clear and unambiguous choice of the framers of the Constitution, most of whom were also serious Christians"

Or does anyone think the purpose of the constitution was to perpetuate a christian order?

Why the false dichotomy?

The Founders clearly did not want a Christian nation, but did want one influenced by Christian values, with public expressions of reliance on and faith in God. As has been pointed out, Washington favored Congressional chaplains, exhorted public prayer, and expressed the belief that the republic must be founded on virtue based on respect for the divine.

America could have gone the way of atheism and secularism a la France, but clearly chose not to.

So disestablishment of religion, yes -- but not hostility or even ambivalence. More like respect and encouragement.

And I second ScurvyOaks: Of course I have no problem with a Muslim being sworn in on the Qur'an. Why would I want him to swear on a book which he doesn't believe to God he doesn't worship?

36

I must say I am a bit surprised and encouraged by the last two posts, especially ScurvyOaks'. I knew there were evangelicals left who supported the separation of church and state, but they seem to be a dwindling number. May your tribe increase! It is interesting that Baptists were such enthusiastic supporters of the separation of church and state until they actually gained political power. It is always the minority religious groups who insist on religious freedom for all. That is one reason I think it is healthy for Muslims to at least have a toehold in the public square.

On the downside, I just saw a "poll" (I use the term very loosely) at the American Family Association website. When asked, "Would you vote for a Muslim for president?" 4,278 said "yes" and 192,163 said "no." Not exactly a ringing endorsement for religious tolerance from the evangelical community.

37

I consider the "Founding Fathers" the families that came to America in the mid 1600s. These were devout Christians. Prayer, communion, baptisim, praise and thanksgiving to the Lord Jesus Christ was a daily lifestyle. I believe that is why America is Christian founded.

38

"I consider the "Founding Fathers" the families that came to America in the mid 1600s."

I assume you mean the Puritans in Massachusetts. What justification can you offer for overlooking the Virginia settlers, who came years earlier and were much more secular in outlook? William Byrd points this out in his History of the Dividing Line when he observes that the Massachusetts settlers were likely to spend 50 dollars building a tavern and 500 dollars building a church. In Virginia, he notes, those figures would be reversed.

The Puritans founded a colony, not a nation. If they are your justification for considering America as "Christian-founded", then your conclusion is based upon a rather thin and flawed pretext.

39

"I consider the "Founding Fathers" the families that came to America in the mid 1600s. These were devout Christians. Prayer, communion, baptisim, praise and thanksgiving to the Lord Jesus Christ was a daily lifestyle. I believe that is why America is Christian founded."

But keep in mind that the church founded by the Mayflower Pilgrims has been a Unitarian church for centuries. Would you also agree that the same "Enlightenment" factors which gave us the nation's founding documents may also have been responsible for the evolution of the Pilgrims' church in Plymouth to Unitarianism? Just maybe this "liberalizing" of religious thinking itself could be considered a part of our nation's birthright? Just a thought.

40

"But keep in mind that the church founded by the Mayflower Pilgrims has been a Unitarian church for centuries."

Are you sure about that?

41

Hey Jon! The Plymouth First Parish was one of the first in America to become Unitarian.

http://cms.plymouthuu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=45

Actually, this liberalizing tendency resulted in a split over theology, with the Congregationalists moving next door (literally). Both congregations directly rooted in the Pilgrims' church share the same roots of liberalized religion, one a UU church and the other United Church of Christ.

By the way, you might be interested in knowing that at least one part of the Pilgrims' "mother church" back in England (a "dissenting church" in Gainsborough) went on to become Unitarian as well.) I would argue that in both cases, the changes went directly to their roots of radical-Protestant stubbornness.

42

Okay. I see. I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you meant the Puritans who founded the colony were unitarians. The link says the Church officially became unitarian in 1800. I know that John Adams' Church preached unitarianism by 1750; so the movement is even older than the link notes.

43

Also worth noting is that the Puritans of the seventeenth century had a rather narrow definition of "Christian." It is likely that they would consider the vast majority of Christians in today's America to be heretics fit only to be hanged. They had greater tolerance for nonbelievers than for self-proclaimed Christians who deviated in the least from their version of the faith.

44

"consider the "Founding Fathers" the families that came to America in the mid 1600s. These were devout Christians. Prayer, communion, baptisim, praise and thanksgiving to the Lord Jesus Christ was a daily lifestyle. I believe that is why America is Christian founded."

This is nearly self evident. Of course America is predominantly christian because the majority of the original colonists and subsequent immigrants were christian. I suppose it would have been a different story had the colonists not been christian.

The founders of the "United States", however, probably can't be called devout or anything close to it...at least not he Jeffersons, Madisons, Washingtons, Adams and Franklins. And given these folks general disposition, I'd have no problem believing that had they the benefit of Darwin's ideas they'd have found themselves barely Christian at all at the end of the day.

45

Joe Carter writes, "While we Christians can claim few founding fathers as fellow believers, the atheistic secularist can claim none."

I'm don't know that the atheist can claim any American or European in the year 1776. The Enlightenment broke with a millenium and half of belief. That fog did not dissipate quickly, and attached even to those who were busy dispelling it. Not even David Hume could be counted an atheist by today's measure. I don't find repugnant that Jefferson believed in a god. I find it admirable that held to reason over faith, and that applying that reason, he discarded traditional religion. If he didn't end up where modern people do who follow that path, we nonetheless have to credit him for being one of the first to march in that direction. Modern rationalists have the advantage that we can read Hume, Jefferson, Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell, and a long list of other authors, mostly of the 19th and 20th centuries. Jefferson had only the first of that list to read. Since rationalists view philosophy more as a process than an endpoint, and have no notion like the Christian's that divides the world into the saved and unsaved, we are able to view Jefferson in the context of his time and place, and admire what he did. To the evangelical who wants to exclaim, "at least Jefferson wasn't an atheist," I have to ask whether his god puts deists and atheists, who both reject faith and the divinity of Jesus and the Christian scheme of salvation, into different circles of hell.

46

I'm don't know that the atheist can claim any American or European in the year 1776.

Stephen Girard came to America in 1776. Wasn't Paine still here that year?

47

Paine was a deist. His pamphlets were chock-full of appeals to the divine. His deism was a bit unusual in that he believed in an involved god, not the "watchmaker" model of so many European thinkers. Even as he savaged Christianity in The Age of Reason he believed in a supreme being of some sort. During his lifetime he was accused of being an atheist by ignorant people, as Jefferson was, but to my knowledge he never thought of or referred to himself that way.

48

The views of the Deistically-inclined founding fathers would have been as repugnant to the modern secularist as those of the “Christian Right.”

As a modern secularist, I take issue with this straw-man portrayal. As the Founders of my country, the only country in the world that would guarantee my right to worship or not worship as I see fit, I can have nothing but sincere gratitude and reverence for these extroadinary men. I don't judge the man by the religion, neither do I cut any slack for co-secularists who espouse bigotry toward the faithful, like the repugnant Richard Dawkins.

49

Joe, Commenters and Onlookers:

I almost didn't bother to comment, but thought on second look that I should. Pardon my reminding of the following, but it is material to the proper estimation of the force -- or more accurately, lack of force -- of too much of the above.

I would be more impressed with the sort of arguments above if they credibly accounted for the sort of frequently repeated, public, official acts of the Founding Congress acting as a body as we can see in the many proclamations they made in the ilk of the following from March-May 1776, over the name of the same John Hancock who is the first name under the DOI of July 4 that year:

>>In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations [then about 98 - 99+ % of the population], to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day.>>

Similarly, for December 1777, the same Congress proclaimed:

>>It is . . . recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE>>

In short, the nascent USA plainly acted within a general Christian worldview and very specific points of soteriology in seeking to resist then replace tyranny being imposed by George III, similar to the same resistance as advocated by Duplessis-Mornay from 1579 and the Dutch founders from 1581 and much more.

My point is that this evidence, too -- despite being often ignored or suppressed or dismissed -- is material to drawing proper conclusions on the US founding.

I invite onlookers to look at the recent Library of Congress display of relevant materials, often with facsimilies of the original documents, here:

[suppressed due to running into the usual post eating subroutine]

On that page, the LOC - with abundant warrant relative to evidence cited and linked -- comments:

>>The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men . . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity . . . . Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people . . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.">>

I trust this will be helpful to those who want to balance their conclusions in light of the full body of material facts.

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

50

A national health promotion and disease prevention initiative bringing together many individuals and agencies to improve the health of all Americans WBR LeoP