Perhaps one of the most controversial issues that surround our nation's early history is the religious nature of our Founding Era. Although more secular historians are beginning to admit that religion (in particular, Christianity) played a key role in our nation's move toward independence from Great Britain, and that our Founding Fathers did religious things, and may even have been genuine Christians, the debate over separation between church and state and the issue of Christianity's influence upon our form of government still continues. In my experience, there are two fundamental reasons that this debate remains largely unsettled in the minds of many of Americans. (1) There is a confusion of what the phrase "a Christian nation" means in America's case, and (2) some people, especially those who have a bias against God and Christianity, would feel uncomfortable if they knew and acknowledged that God's law was meant to be the law ultimately respected and practiced in this country; therefore, they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18), in order to keep themselves in their comfortable delusion. Experience proves that it is impossible to convince those who are determined to hold on to their lie no matter what the facts are. But perhaps it is possible to correct the misunderstandings that exist in the minds of those who don't understand what an American Christian nation is.
Whenever someone enters a debate over whether or not something is true, the first and most important step in presenting your counter-argument is to define the key terms used in that argument. In this case, the point I wish to make is "America is a Christian nation." The most important part of that sentence is the phrase "Christian nation," since that is the variable depending upon which side is doing the arguing. When the term "Christian nation" is used, several definitions of that term immediately occur to people:
Definition #1: "Christian nation" = theocracy. In other words, a Christian nation is a nation in which the clergy who belong to the Christian denomination(s) essentially govern the nation through the government. This is a description which matches the Roman government under Emperor Constantine I, or the European monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire. There is no question that these governments were corrupt and full of abuses. This is not the description of a true and literal theocracy ("rule of a nation by God Himself"), but a description of a government under the rule of men, who CLAIM to get their instructions directly from God.
This is not Scriptural government, because the Scriptures teach that absolute power given to any man or group of men is prone to be abused and used for corrupt ends, now mater how well-intentioned those ends may be. This doctrine is grounded in the principle that man has a degenerate nature that centers around his own self-interest and desire to enrich and empower himself. One cannot read the Bible without finding this principle pervading and preeminent. Absolute power, in which a man is accountable to no one but himself, is to great a temptation for any man to resist.
Unfortunately, many Christian denominations in the past (take for popular example, the Catholics during the Dark Ages, or the Puritans of early colonial Massachusetts) have thought that they needed to "help Jesus out" by "preparing" the world for His return and millennial rule. When this kind of theology was put into practice, it resulted not only in obvious tyranny and injustice (though not all those who inflicted such were truly born-again Christians), it manifested an outright breach of Scripture. In the last chapter of the Book of Revelation, after the Apostle John (who wrote Revelation) was shown the "New Jerusalem" and Christ's kingdom in all of its glory, beauty, and righteousness, the angel who was "conducting the tour of the future" so-to-speak, gave this warning:
"Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still." (Revelation 22: 10-11; italics added)Verse 11 (in italics above) has eluded many of its readers, including myself, for some time. Surely, this verse does not mean that Christians are not to take a stand against ungodliness. What does it mean then? I have come to believe that Christ was most likely warning the Christian leaders who were then to come not to coerce Christianity upon people. Only Christ is allowed to have such absolute authority, for He is without a depraved human nature, and only He has the ability or right to demand obedience and submission. When one transgresses this, he easily creates his own religion and set of "oral traditions." The Catholic leadership in medieval Europe did just that, and therefore not only persecuted non-believers, but those who were trying to sincerely serve God, and therefore the Catholics did not let him who is holy be holy still. To make the church and the government two separate institutions is not unbiblical, but to merge the two into one, or to say that one institution must have no part in the other is unbiblical.
Definition #2: "Christian nation" = a nation in which a Christian denomination(s) is the established religion of that nation. A good example of such a government would be the Massachusetts Bay Colony as it was under the strict rule of the Puritans. No room was made for serving God according to one's own conscience. Once you were born into that colony, you were fastened into that community's strict way of life. Singing hymns or smiling on the Sabbath were considered sins. You were not allowed to hitch your wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath. Anyone who questioned the overt strictness of the leaders, whether or not their arguments were purely Scriptural, were fastened in the stocks. If such behavior persisted, one could be banished from the colony and forced to live a solitary life in the cruel wilderness of northern New England or even put to death. This Puritan colony was a sad example of how people's man-made religion, enforced by the arms and might of the government, can confound the very Scriptural basis which they claim to uphold.
Other examples of such "Christian nations" were Great Britain at the time of the Founding Fathers, and Europe at the time of the Inquisition.
When one hears the claim that "America was founded as a Christian nation" with these two definitions in mind, they react with disgust, and respond that America's Founders envisioned no such country -- and rightly so. But the two above definitions did not at all describe the Christian nation envisioned by our Founders. The proper definition of a "Christian nation" in the American case, should be:
Definition #3: "Christian nation" = a nation in which the BASIC principles of Christianity, found clearly written and promulgated in the Scriptures, are the foundation of the form of government and the quality of society and culture. In this country, no one is required to go to church, or is forbidden from smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. Nor are they forbidden to fill their car with gas on Sunday. God does not desire that these be the unbreakable laws of the nation. He desires that men in governments and leaders in society should "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly" (Micah 6:8) with Him. Is this the way our Founders framed our government? Yes. General George Washington, in his Circular Letter to the State Governors of the United States said that unless the leaders and citizens of this country followed those three commandments, found in Micah 6:8, "we will never hope to be a happy nation." Our nation is a "Christian nation" in this sense because our basic principles of government (rule of law as opposed to a rule of man, checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.) are grounded in the basic principles of Christianity. Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence presuppose a Creator, God, and that all men are accountable to obey His laws, as revealed to mankind in the Scriptures.
Upon this statement, our Founders agreed. They did not expect that America would require any citizen to believe a particular form of Christianity, but that our nation embraced the "GENERAL PRINCIPLES of Christianity" (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813).
In the following posts, I shall first explore what the Founders had to say about the role of Christianity and the Bible in the role of government, and then we shall look at how Christianity and the Bible are the cornerstone of the foundations of our Constitution and original political system.
19 Comments:
I think we may have discussed the Adams quotation but I don't think that at all confirms the "Christian Nation" thesis.
He pretty much said that the writings of Hume, Voltaire and Rousseau confirm his idea of "general principles" of Christianity. He further said:
Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
Adams' theory of "general principles of Christianity" when looked at in context, is actually closer to theological universalism or theistic rationalism.
Similarly, Washington's Circular, looked at in overall context, invokes Christianity or "the benign light of revelation" as one of many different philosophical sources.
In Ideological Origins of the American Revolution Harvard Prof. Bernard Bailyn notes 4 or 5 ideological sources of founding era republican thought: 1) Biblical principles; 2) Pagan-Greco-Roman principles; 3) English common law principles; 4) Enlightenment rationalistic principles. He also notes these 4 at times disparate strands of thought were synthesized in a vast body of literature by British dissenter or Whig theorists like Locke, Sidney, and Milton of the earlier era, or Priestly, Price, and Burgh, of the Founders' contemporary era. Of those 4 strands of thought, something dominated the synthesis and it was not Christianity or Biblical principles; it was Enlightenment rationalism (or "reason") which was the lens through which all principles, including the Bible, were to be viewed.
He desires that men in governments and leaders in society should "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly" (Micah 6:8) with Him.
If this is what it means to be Christian Nation, then I don't know what we are arguing over, because I can can agree with this 100%.
But when I listen to D. James Kennedy's sermons, it seems to me that he wanted to go much further....His idea looked much closer to 2.
Though I do disagree with your intimation that the basic principles of republican government somehow derive from Christianity. I would say they are compatible with Christianity, but do not necessarily derive from it.
Two things in response to you, Jonathan:
First, your analysis of Washington's Circular is not entirely accurate.
You say "Washington's Circular, looked at in overall context, invokes Christianity or "the benign light of revelation" as one of many different philosophical sources."
Washington said "The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, AND ABOVE ALL, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had ameliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society." (emphasis added) So Washington was not treating the other "secular" sources as equals to the "benign light of Revelation."
And as to Adams, you say "He pretty much said that the writings of Hume, Voltaire and Rousseau confirm his idea of 'general principles' of Christianity."
And Adams did say "I could therefore safely say, consistent with all my then and present information, that I believed that they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, in religion, and government I could fill sheets of quotations from Fredric of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention the thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame." Adams did not think highly of these philosophers, simply because of their hostility to Christianity, but as many Christians know, many times the statements of unbelievers are proof of the very Christianity that those skeptics oppose (for instance, the general principle of Christianity that mankind has a naturally depraved nature!).
Second: Instead of turning my blogs as a forum to spout your misinformation (to which you should realize by now that I am not going to cower), I would suggest that you get a job or preoccupy your time with something better than repeating lies and falsehoods which I am not going to accept. You said that if I wanted you to scram, to let you know. I politely accept your invitation.
Cheers!
He pretty much said that the writings of Hume, Voltaire and Rousseau confirm his idea of "general principles" of Christianity.>>
This quote is true only after Adams left office, and was not his sentiments while forming the nation.
the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, AND ABOVE ALL, the pure and benign light of Revelation>>
This is interesting, I've never seen it until now, much obliged. It seems the Revelation is the bible, is it not? Is it safe to say Washington believed Revelation over reason?
Though I do disagree with your intimation that the basic principles of republican government somehow derive from Christianity. I would say they are compatible with Christianity, but do not necessarily derive from it.>>
Where else could it derive? The earliest mention of it, is Exo 18:21? It is Representative govt. ruled by law. Where is the proof Madison derived Representative govt. from somewhere else?
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place...
James Madison Federalist #10
Exodus 18:21 (King James Version)
21Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
If you disagree with this, please provide some info proving the contrary.
Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice.
Entry by Thomas Jefferson in his Anas. February 1, 1800, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Selected and Edited by Saul K. Padover , The Easton press. (1967) pp 217-218)
This is from a Born Again Christian, if Jefferson was lieing, Rush would have said something. I think the testimony is accurate, and Asa Green was a Christian as well. This is a clincher as well as walking out on Communion, has made my decision clear. I think John Rowe has did an good job showing the prayer book inauthentic by experts, even if the papers were with authentic ones.
I don't know any Christian who doesn't believe communion is not reserved for believers, as well as it IS a remembrance of the Atonement, that is no doubt biblical.
Someone not taking communion is a sign of unregeneration or in the least great immaturity in the faith.
Mentioning Rowe as spreading lies, I have no comment, but I know I have authentically rebuffed some of his propositions with no acknowledgement whatsoever!
Thanks for your comment OFT. I am finally able to get back to you on this.
As to Jefferson's comment on Washington and Rush -- remember, Asa Green, who wrote the letter in question, said that Jefferson's estimation of what went on between the Philadelphia clergy and Washington was inaccurate. Also, you pointed out that if Jefferson was lying about what Rush said, then Rush would have said something. Rush probably would have, if Rush had lived to see Jefferson's statement published. Jefferson's statement which you quoted, was not in a letter to someone, but a note on a piece of paper, that was published after Jefferson's death (which occurred in 1826), whereas Rush died 13 years earlier (1813). It doesn't prove per-ca that Rush didn't believe what Jefferson said he did, however, Asa Green's testimony diminishes Jefferson's credit.
As to the communion -- if you do the homework, you realize that what has been practiced for centuries in Catholic and related denominations is far from what was originally started in the New Testament. I am pressed for time as I write this, so perhaps I will write more on the particulars of the subject later in a post on Washington and this long, ongoing controversy. However, I will repeat what I have said before: Washington did take communion from time to time -- there are accounts of eyewitnesses who knelt beside him at the services, including Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, who wrote many reminiscences of George Washington. William J. Johnson's book George Washington the Christian reprints documents and letters of such testimonials. Examine them for yourself and come to your own conclusions. As for me, I found no apparent difficulties in the testimonies. Johnson examines the evidence pro and con. If you haven't read this book before (btw, it is full of valuable reprints), you may be interested. If you have read it, perhaps you would be interested in giving me your thoughts on the book, when it is a convenient time for you?
That communion is a remembrance of the atonement is no doubt biblical, and I am not arguing with that. I think that Washington believed in this to some degree, for as recounted by a Presbyterian minister by the name of Jones, who lived in or near Morristown NJ, during the Revolutionary War, and who administered a communion service for Washington and his staff, Washington believed that the communion was "the Lord's Table, not the table of any particular denomination" (not perfectly quoted, but Washington did say "the Lord's Table"). The letter in which the account of this service and the conversation preceding it is recorded in Johnson's book.
You made a very good refutation of Rowe's assertion that republican govt. perhaps was not contrary to Scripture, but that Scripture did not originate the idea. Even John Locke acknowledged the impact of the Bible upon his own political philosophy, and his recognition of its authority over his own reason:
"The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment [sic]. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture."
Postscript to "A letter to the Right Revd. Edward ... Concerning some passages relating to Mr. Locke's Essay of Human Understanding"
Asa Green, who wrote the letter in question, said that Jefferson's estimation of what went on between the Philadelphia clergy and Washington was inaccurate.>>
I didn't know that. Thanks for that.
Washington did take communion from time to time>>
I haven't seen the testimonies of it.
By the way, where is that quote by Locke affirming the trinity? I saw it on your site, but can't find it.
If you get a minute, check out the post by Jon Rowe on my latest blog. It's unbelievable. He's saying rationalists get to pick and choose which miracles they think is proper. To me, a violation of the Law of Nature is just that. I can't believe people fall for such deceit.
Hello, OFT. I am sorry for the length of time it took for me to answer (I am constantly tackling more that one project at a time), but, anyway, here it is.
As to the testimonies of Washington occasionally receiving the communion, I will reprint the letters that Johnson reproduced in his book George Washington the Christian on my Founders blog in the near future.
As to Locke's belief in the Trinity, here are Locke's words (a Christian minister had written a book in defense of the Trinity, and criticized Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, because the minister perceived that Locke disbelieved in the Trinity. Locke wrote a lengthy reply which aimed to correct the misunderstanding):
Locke said that the minister's book made "a mistake, that I was one of the gentlemen of that new way of reasoning, who argued against the doctrine of the Trinity." At the end of Locke's lengthy reply pamphlet, he wrote in the postscript:
"If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour.
... The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. But I must confess to your lordship, that I do not perceive any such contrariety in any thing in my Essay of Human Understanding."
As to Locke's belief in the Trinity, here are Locke's words (a Christian minister had written a book in defense of the Trinity, and criticized Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, because the minister perceived that Locke disbelieved in the Trinity. Locke wrote a lengthy reply which aimed to correct the misunderstanding):>.
Thanks a lot Herc. How on earth did the scholarly community disregard these statements by Locke? Even though this is close to the end of Locke's life, secularists still think he was an Arian. They talk about his friends(Newton) being unitarians and his library filled with unitarian works as their evidence. Locke was attacked by everyone on it, most of it not deserved. But this is what happens when you are somewhat mysterious about your beliefs.
The guy was a theologian who is wrongly accused of being an Arian, Jon Rowe, being one.
Thanks for the info. I will have another blog out soon, I see someone voted for Samuel Adams on my blog. Not a bad choice.
Hi OFT.
Can't wait to see your new blog. Can you be sure to let me know when it is out? I will link to it on my own. Yeah, a vote for Sam Adams isn't a bad selection. Being the "Father of the American Revolution," he was much more responsible for the existence of the American republic than say, Thomas Jefferson, even though he did write the original draft for the Declaration (rather reluctantly -- he wasn't a very dedicated public official at the time).
Just a comment on your question "How on earth did the scholarly community disregard these statements by Locke?"
One thing I have always noticed is that just because someone has a reputation for being a scholar does not always mean that they examine evidence objectively. As you have most likely noticed, many of the well-known scholars have a God-complex, and so they tend to interpret such things and history and science from a secular viewpoint. I do not reject scholars because they are scholars, but I do not blindly accept the word of scholars just because a scholar said it. I prefer to check out the facts for myself, and determine truth, or the greatest probability that way.
I do prefer to give scholars the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are under allusions because of some fundamental misunderstandings, for instance, of what Christianity is. So there may be multiple reasons for why scholars erroneously portray Locke as an Arian. Either they do not double-check their conclusions with Locke himself, ignore Locke's words, or are ignorant of Locke's work because they are not familiar with his work. I hope that answers your curiosity.
Again, I can't wait to read your new blog!
Herc,
Thanks for the post. I saw your post on my latest blog, I ended up seeing Brayton's disgraceful post on Dr. D. James Kennedy, and I had to post on it. That guy is a loser, not only does he not give the justification for his personal attacks on Kennedy, he deletes my posts on his site. Everyone has a right to a blog, but if I made statements without evidence to back it up, I would be susceptible to attacks, which is why I posted it.
Most people back up their statements with information when they blog, Brayton isn't one of them. Could you imagine, a prosecutor in a court of law telling the jury to find the evidence on your own! What a joke.
Locke was a whig who believed in discriminating against atheists and Catholics. His so-called religious tolerance was cafeteria Christianity, choosing what he liked and trashing what he did not like.
Locke believed that Catholics and atheists should have fewer rights than correctly believing Protestants. In that, he was no different than most of the era. The relkigious test to be passed was a Protestant, Nicene, Trinitarian, anti-Papist one.
He also supported restrictions on their testamentary rights, too. That strategy was begun by Constantine in the 4th century.
Whatever Locke said or believed about Catholics, Catholicism itself is not true, Biblical Christianity. Whining about "fairness" doesn't change the facts. Papism is heresy.
Plus, at least Locke didn't go around issuing papal bulls and making iron maidens....
I just ran across some interesting material by way of Google Books as I was searching for info on Asa Green:
"But Doctor Rush hunted higher game than Medical Directors. In the winter and early spring of 1778, when Congress was squabbling at Yorktown and Washington and his wretched soldiers were suffering at Valley Forge, Patrick Henry, then Governor of Virginia, received at Williamsburg an anonymous letter ... He did not throw the letter into the fire but forwarded it at once to Washington with this comment, 'While you face the armed enemies of our liberty in the field, and by the favour of God have been kept unhurt, I trust your country will never harbour in her bosom the miscreant who would ruin her best supporter ... Washington's answer was prompt and decisive. 'The anonymous letter with which you were pleased to favour me was written by Doctor Rush, so far as I can judge from a similitude of hands. This man has been elaborate and studied in his professions of regard for me and long since the letter to you. ... This is not the only insidious attempt that has been made to wound my reputation. There have been others equally base, cruel, and ungenerous.'
"...In 1781, Doctor Rush, with the fluency which his animosities stimulated, wrote to Gates, (also under a cloud and discontented) as to his fears of a monarchy and aristocracy from those whom he describes as 'the Sachems of the Potomac and the Hudson' meaning Washington whom he hated, and, probably, the Livingstons and Schuylers. And so it continued to the bitter end, for we find that Doctor Rush's antipathy to Washington, if not to his friends, long survived the exasperations of war. 'Doctor Rush tells me,' says Mr. Jefferson in his 'Ana' of twenty years later, (the 1st of February 1800,) exactly forty days after Washington died amidst the tears of a whole people with the exception of a few who felt as did Doctor Rush-- 'he (Rush) tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the Clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion ...'"
(Pp 66 - 68) President Reed of Pennsylvania: A Repy to Mr. George Bancroft and Others ... By William Bradford Reed
If what this book (dated 1867) states is correct, it throws the quote from Jefferson's diary into a whole new light! Up to now, the implication has been that Dr. Rush was an honorable man and close friend and confidant of George Washington, and so would only testify honestly. This book, though, portrays Dr. Rush as an enemy of Washington, always out to destroy Washington's reputation.
You said to Jonathan Rowe: Second: Instead of turning my blogs as a forum to spout your misinformation (to which you should realize by now that I am not going to cower), I would suggest that you get a job or preoccupy your time with something better than repeating lies and falsehoods which I am not going to accept. You said that if I wanted you to scram, to let you know. I politely accept your invitation.
Rowe is one of the better Constitutional and foundings scholars on the internet. His work is golden.
If you regard solid scholarship and polite debate with such disdain, I wonder why you even bother with studying the founders. Rowe is the epitome of the sort of scholar the founders revered, the example of the type of person they hoped our nation would produce.
Why do you hate America so? I might ask a bit tongue in cheek.
But you did chase Rowe away.
Unconscionable. What sort of Stalinism do you practice here?
Ed Darrell:
If you think that I regard "solid scholarship and political debate with such disdain," you had better read more of my comments. You are also mistaken in thinking that this debate about the Founders' original intent is "political." It was never supposed to be, although it would of course have political repercussions to an extent.
I am against Rowe's First Amendment rights to freely express his own opinions, just because I asked him not to leave comments on this blog anymore??? May I ask which First Amendment you are reading???
I NEVER said he couldn't respond to me on his OWN blog. I NEVER said he had to shut up. I NEVER called him names, or anything. And yet I am some great Stalinist because I dared to ask him (he gave me that option from the very start) to stop leaving comments on this blog?
I chased Rowe away? Hardly! He included with the first comment he ever left on this blog, a statement saying that he was willing to accept a request from me not to comment. His motive could have been politeness, or it could have been a trap, to make me look like a censorist -- I don't know.
It was difficult for me to ask him to leave in light of that thought. However, his comments were frequent and long, and because he kept leaving them here, I felt a natural pressure to respond to them as soon as possible. For me, who does not live at my computer, this put me in a dilemma. I had very little time to write posts, and a lot of my time was being spent responding to his comments. Now, I was perfectly willing to read his comments and answer them, but it was becoming more and more inconvenient to do so. I would rather respond to his claims at my own convenience, rather than feeling pressure to respond to a deluge of comments.
On top of that, there was the frustration of feeling that my main points and key rebuttals were being ignored in his responses. I felt that the whole comment debate was becoming a waste of my time and his, and asked that he refrain from leaving comments here.
It's interesting you should mention Stalinism, and it's more ironic that you should accuse me of it. First of all, Stalin was an atheist, and a persecutor of Christians. I am a Christian, but I do not persecute atheists. If you think that me calling their claims "propaganda" is persecution -- please, grow up. The "sort of scholar the Founders would revere" would be the one who would be unmoved by those appellations. Haven't you noticed how many time the Founders criticized each other?
And speaking of Stalinism, here is Article 52 of the Soviet Constitution of 1977:
"Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."
And the kind of scholar the Founders would revere? Listen to the words written by Washington and Hamilton, in the 1796 Farewell Address:
"In all those dispositions which promote political happiness, religion and morality are essential props. In vain does he claim the praise of patriotism, who labors to subvert or undermine these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest foundations of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public happiness.
"Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation deserts the oaths which are administered in courts of justice? Nor ought we to flatter ourselves that morality can be separated from religion. Concede as much as may be asked to the effect of refined education in minds of peculiar structure, can we believe, can we in prudence suppose, that national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principles? Does it not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative religion?
"’T is essentially true that virtue or morality is a main and necessary spring of popular or republican governments. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to all free governments. Who that is a prudent and sincere friend to them, can look with indifference on the ravages which are making in the foundation of the fabric—religion? The uncommon means which of late have been directed to this fatal end, seem to make it in a particular manner the duty of a retiring chief of a nation to warn his country against tasting of the poisonous draught [sic]."
~ Hamilton's final draft, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, edited by Henry C. Lodge, volume 8
Jon Rowe, as an agnostic, does not believe that "religion and morality" are "essential pillars" of society. According to Washington and Hamilton, such a man cannot even ascribe to the title of a patriot. Rowe also disbelieves that any religion whatsoever can be divinely authoritative. He also believes that the Founders did not believe in a divinely authoritative religion either. However, that is exactly what is appealed to above! And you say that the Founders would admire such a scholar?
Your delusion is your problem, not mine.
Mulligan wrote: His motive could have been politeness, or it could have been a trap, to make me look like a censorist -- I don't know.
It seems that Jonathan succeeded on both counts, whatever his motive.
Bret --
IF Jon's motive was to try to make me look like a censorist, than he failed. All one would have to do is read his first comment on this blog. He invited me to ask him to leave if I saw fit. How can I be the one with the problem, then? I would not be asking him without an invitation from himself. He gave me that option from the start.
How can I be viewed as a censorist by accepting his invitation, if I saw fit? How can my asking him to leave be viewed as OK one minute, but not the next?
I think that he is smart enough to know that he would ultimately be the one with the burden of responsibility for his being asked to leave; not me. That is why I am assuming that he asked me out of politeness.
Let me also add, that it would have been impossible for me to TRULY censor Rowe.
There are a lot more people who read his blog, and posts he writes elsewhere, than those who read this blog. By asking him to leave, I would by no means censoring his opinion, only giving my own opinion of it.
He has said much harsher things for my views, and that much more often, than I have. His work, as I have just mentioned, is much more widely read than mine. His blogs have been around longer, and he has more connections, so naturally, that would be expected.
Should I consider his work censorship of mine? I don't, and I don't care if it is, because I am not so thin-skinned so as to mind "censorship."
I only mind it when people apply a double-standard: accusing me of deception, intentional misrepresentation of facts, failure to cite primary sources (all above charges are false), while they do the same thing. I don't know what Ed Darell's problem is, but while he accused me of not listing primary resources (I did list them after each quote; he should have bothered to read my citations), he himself did not list any at all (except for the Memorial and Remonstrance). I then asked him to give me the citations of HIS sources, because on first glance, I saw that he 1) took a statement of John Adams out of context, which, when put in context, said the exact opposite of what Ed was trying to say, 2) confused several letters of John Adams, and 3) made a reference to a statement of Adams that I searched for (he was apparently too lazy to read my footnotes, and too lazy to give his own, even upon my request), but could find no evidence of whatsoever.
Post a Comment