talking about dead white men

nothing peeves me more then when i hear the so called religious right, a group i believe to be grossly out of touch with the majority of americans, and certainly something totally unmainstream, talk about how we're a 'Christian nation' and the like, and then cite the founding fathers, that routine, that the constitution says we are (it doesnt), etc etc. i always wondered about that debate but never really looked at the roots of it, which i think is a necessary condition, especially when were talkin' constitution. sure i had an opinion on the separation of church and state, but it was one founded on the climate i live in and some scattered readings of jefferson, and not much in between. so today i wanted to look deeper into that debate and see what i could find.

heres it in brief. well sort of in brief. as brief as i could make it.

before we were a nation, we were a conglomeration of 13 colonies, with no central government (bar that of the crown) with very few legal and formal linkages between colonies. some colonies were private economic enterprises, some were set up by religious separatists seeking freedom, then georgia was a penal colony. we werent a nation in the political science or social definition (or really any other) nor were we trying to become one, in the beginning. after the first few generations of americans, or rather pre declaration of independence americans, curiously many political figures, and especailly those who would go on to found the country, maintained the an adherence to what would be considered anything but Christianity.

Sure we can look at our founding fathers and say most were in fact Christian. on the surface. Jefferson became a deist at william and mary and in his writings rejected the Trinity and that Jesus was the Messiah. he also claimed that the disciples were a"band of dupes and impostors." In what has become known as the Jefferson Bible, he trumpeted Jesus's moral philosophy, ommiting anything resembling a miracle (telling Adams that separating what he perceived to be fact from fiction was like 'picking diamonds out of dunghills'), citing his own research which supported the conclusion that miracles were later papal additions to the story, and that Paul created a corrupt institution. He also said that he believed the stories surrounding Jesus's birth would one day be viewed the same as Minerva's emergence from Jupiter's brain. Later in life, he considered himself a unitarian, then accepted as a branch of Christianity, just as that movement was beginning. he never joined a unitarian congregation, because there were none in virginia, and he died within a few years of that movements establishment. unitarians would go on to view jefferson as an important figure in their movement.

So far that addresses just his personal beliefs, which are important, in viewing the much wider implications of his legacy on public policy. Jefferson was a staunch advocate of the separation of church and state. Jefferson wrote his own epitaph, on it were only three things: author of the decl. of independence, the statute of virginia for religious freedom, and the founder of the university of virginia. prior to writing of the statute for religious freedom, office holders in virginia had to swear allegiance to Christianity. The episcopal church was also funded by state level taxes. in the law, it was stated that there could be no interference by virginia in the personal religious beliefs of individuals, and that it could not affect their civic standing. We can't talk about jefferson's interpretation of religion via the dec. of independence, because, and many people fail to realize this, religion was never discussed. Words that are said: Nature's God (the way deists describe the creator), Creator (every religion has one of these), Divine Providence and Supreme Judge (simply appeals to a higher being).

Later, jefferson would vigourously defend the separation of church and state as it was in the 1st amendment, referring to it as 'the wall of separation'. he did not see a place for state religion in government, nor government in religion. he even defended the morality of the atheists, a pretty hot button issue, then and now. read some of his letters on the topic, all are illuminating, but at the same time are too many words to put on here.

i guess the logical progression would be to go to john adams next. starting with his core beliefs. adams was a self described unitarian. initially a congregationalist, he became unitarian when the congregationalist movement formed/evolved/whatevered into unitarianism. Adams too rejected the Trinity. he was perhaps the second most important founding father (a lot will say the most) but didn't add much to the religious side of the debates. pretty straightforward guy there.

we're not really going to talk about washington, because he wasnt really a founding father. but its worth mentioning that he was another of those episcopal turned deists who still retained a christian morality. he never took communion after becoming an adult.

ben franklin. one of the more complex ones, because like everything else he did in life, he went back and forth. Adams described him as a 'man which people saw their own religion'. for all intents and purposes another deist who rejected the Trinity. perhaps hes best described as a 'generalist' who believed primarily in virtue and not in perceived dogma. also an early proponent of separation of church and state, believing that a good church is one that can support itself. when it cant, and God can't, then its a bad one. <-his words in brief.

paine. the one that got the whole things started, but now the one that nobody gives a crap about. tragic the way history is. anyway. he wrote 'the age of reason' which basically got him killed when he went back to england, the country of his birth. it advocated deism, highlighted perceived inconsistencies in the Bible which he called 'fabulous mythology' and not the true word of God or that the Gospels were even written by the disciples, and advocated the free thinking ideals of the enlightenment, that reason should triumph over revelation. believed church and state needed to be separated through radical means, or else they would become corrupt. his creed:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe
so that was basically him.

Now who the Christian right really needs to be citing is patrick henry. although he never signed the declaration or the constitution. he was like basically the only prominent political (ie non church) figure in that crowd to advocate for state Christianity. there are like a million letters between him and the other guys where they yell at each other. he strongly belived in state sponsored religion, and tried to pass a bill giving taxes to churches, but that individuals could earmark and decide to which church their tax went. non deist episcopalians supported it, everybody else shut it down. the act that passed in its place was jeffersons statute on religious freedom.

Madison. father of the constitution. atheist? probably. born an episcopalian, pretty much like the rest of them. he kept his views pretty private, but in his day as well as today, its thought he was an atheist. this is informed in part from correspondences and statements, and also for his vigorous defence of the separation of church and state at the state and national levels, though that defence cant make him an atheist. he certainly didnt practice anything in particular, that much is known, but much of the rest is inference. God, or anything Christian was never mentioned in teh constitution until the bill of rights was passed, a couple of years later. the two clauses in the first amendment that deal with religion, the establishment and the free exercise clause, say congress can't make a law establishing a state religion, nor can they pass laws preventing the free exercise of a religion.

monroe-never really said anything on the topic. they think he was another one of the deist by way of episcopalian though.

hamilton-became religious and more Christian-er later in life, but at the time of the constitutional conventions he made jokes about God. one often cited one is that he was asked why the word God doesnt appear in the Constitution and replied 'We forgot it.' one might question the context of this statement, but hamilton was a notorious sarcastic so its accepted that this was in jest.

i guess thats about all of the big ones right.

its interesting really when you think about it, that conventional wisdom has lumped the puritans in with the founding fathers, when tehy couldnt be more different. the founding fathers, barring henry and a few lesser signers, were all philosophically borne out of enlightment tradition and not christian theo-social paradigms. The american revolution, and americas foundation as a country were not triumphs of Christian ideals, that religious victory occured with the formation of the colonies that made the later formation of the country possible, it does in fact appear to be the other way around.

The ultimate irony, which is comedic to a point, is that by promoting state sponsored religion as an american ideal, proponents are aiming for the same policy that was a primary input for america to be formed to begin with. it was the rebellion by minority religions and sects against the crown's state episcopalianism that sent so many across the atlantic to begin with. so for a country who, in its formative years in the late 1700s united behind principles of religious tolerance and freedom, to promote this ideal goes totally against the spirit and the word of our founding fathers and documents. luckily though, even guys like john roberts have read the constitution. so yeah, religious right, take back the country and take it to.....george's 18th century England? good riddance.

i have to admit, i learned a lot from this. i thought t jeff and madison were the ones going against the grain, i didnt realize that they actually represented the majority.

i thought it went like this-christian guys get together and write down some stuff saying that we're free to practice whatever religion we want, but that the spirit of the writing indicates that it damn well better be christian.

i didnt realize that it was more like-guys who would be considered heretics today (seems like itd be hard for people to call obama a 'half breed muslin' today if they knew about our founders, wouldnt it?), but were mainstream with their beliefs then, got together and wrote some stuff that pretty much did actually mean, in spirit and in words, that in the eyes of the state, we're free to practice what we want.

its really astonishing me to think that we as Christians have let this Christian nation paradigm permeate, which many argue is born out of the cold war differentiation complex, and did not exist any earlier than that. the Godded americans vs the Godless soviets. i mean we always forget that in the pledge of allegiance they didnt add the 'one nation under God' until 1954, when things were starting to kick off between us and them. Certainly this notion solidified under reagan for the same reason, hell ill even agree with them and say that the nationalistic hoopla in the 80s let us beat the commies once and for all. consequence though-it was a whole hell of a lot easier to fight them than it is the organs without bodies that we face today. or is it rather the organs with bodies, taht we refuse/fail to understand. but thats a different direction and question entirely.