CaptainDave

I was perusing some of the past posts on this board when I came across this snipet from Buffman:

He was speaking of the language used in the Declaration of Independence. The part that really got me thinking was where he pointed out that the knowledge of evolution did not exist at the time. I don't believe there was any scientific theory of the origin of the universe either.

I would think that the word "Creator" would have a much more generic meaning in such an era. It's religious significance would be very much diluted.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: CaptainDave ]</p>

d'naturalist

Darwin's theory of evolution may not have been presented as of 1776, but the basic theory of natural origins and change is over 2000 years old.

Thomas Jefferson was a <a href="http://atomic-swerve.net/tpg/Jefferson.html" target="_blank">self-proclaimed Epicurean</a>, and Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) is said to be one of the major sources on Epicurean philosophy.

<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.html" target="_blank">On the Nature of Things</a>

Click the link to "Book V" and search about 80% down the page to the heading "Origins of Vegetable and Animal Life". It's interesting in that it also mentions the begatting of "monsters" (mutations) that couldn't survive because they lacked the qualities that promote survival. Unfortunately, I haven't read On The Nature of Things as of yet, but I stumbled across this reference a while back and was lucky enough to find it again.

I'll have to do a basic search of Holbach's System of Nature to see if I can find any references to Enlightemment-era opinion on human origins, but I suspect that divine creation wasn't the only option they were aware of.

Toto

References to the "Creator" and "Nature's God" show the influence of Deism, or what was called "natural religion" in those days.

If you don't have the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, you need some sort of creator to start things off. But the Deists did not identify this Creator with the Christian God - it was just a force that started things, and them withdrew to let the laws of physics take their course.

When you can explain things with evolution or string theory, you no longer need even this Creator.

Buffman

Toto

Exactly!

d'naturalist

Though the "basis" is hardly what I would call "The Theory" of natural origins may be considered to be 2000 years old, obviously that basis had not advanced to the point that any available evidence could be verified. Just observe today's struggle against the Creationist/ID advocates and tell me that Deists didn't believe in an original, supernatural, origin. They simply did not accept the organized dogma surrounding that origin. Thus, they, much like the Catholic Church of today views Evolution, accepted that God set in motion a "natural development" from which humans have become the final and ultimate benefactors.

My point was that only the most educated and intellectually insightful of the politicians of 1776 were true, philosophically practicing, Deists. Fortunately, even though only a very small heldful, they were some of our most influential leaders. However, almost all educated people of 1776 had been influenced by the "Enlightenment" writers. That included almost every Christian politician who held any public office. In political and governmental affairs, they were "Secularists." In religious beliefs, they were Christians. They knew exactly what they were doing when they separated religion and government.

IMHO, that is the greatest weakness(vulnerability)in the David Barton type of propaganda. The issue isn't whether the Founding/Framing Fathers were Christians because they, overwhelmingly, were. The vital issue is whether those Christians were "secularists" when adopting a statement of Independence from the Crown, and in designing a federal republic form of government. They overwhelmingly were! If they had been like the fundamentalist Christians of today, they could have, and would have, created a Christian Nation...just as today's Christian fundamentalists are attempting to do.

Therefore I believe that we are playing into the media propaganda hands of the Christian fundamentalists of today when we attempt to prove that certain Founding/Framing Fathers weren't Christian believers in the supernatural. The overwhelming majority were "Enlightened, Secularist, Christians." The people with whom we take exception are "Unenlightened, Sectarian, Denominational, Christians." (I do not mean that we shouldn't expose the lies being perpetrated by the radical religious right about the religious philosophies of certain Founders, but not at the expense of making it seem as though they were closet Atheists. They weren't. All of them were knowledgeable and experienced men concerning the danger and horrors that stemmed from the power of government supporting the dogma of any one religious faith belief. They knew exactly what they were doing when they attempted to balance all expressions of individual conscience by making the government maintain a neutral position on religious beliefs. That is why I am somewhat surprised that more thoughtful people have not labeled this current administration as the American Taliban.

CaptainDave

Regarding the founding fathers/framers Buffman wrote:

Great point! They were the ones who had the power to build a nation. If they had wanted it to be a Christian nation, why not come out and say so? Clearly these were not people who lacked courage or conviction. If they had wanted a Christian nation, they would have made their wishes clear.

This is the most powerful argument I have seen that this nation was NOT founded on Christianity.

d'naturalist

Buffman,

My only point in bringing up Jefferson's Epicurean connection was to suggest that he, being the author of the DoI, was at least conscious of the idea of natural origins. And since the reference to the "Laws of Nature" was not stricken from the DoI, anyone who chooses to claim Nature as "their Creator" is justified in doing so.

You're, of course, right in pointing out that the majority of the Founders were, in one form or another, theistic men who had risen above the megalomanic tendencies of their modern day counterparts. I agree that it's useless to try and portray them as atheistic.

The point that needs to be made is that the Founders religious beliefs are irrelevant. They chose the role of civil servant over that of aristocrat or king. What they did that made them such remarkable & heroic figures, was to put aside their own personal beliefs and ambitions so they could create a gov't dedicated to serving & preserving the free society. They served our country well and then stepped aside, giving up the power that they had borrowed from the people.

They were ordinary men who did extraordinary things, but their personal beliefs are no more important than any other American's.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: d'naturalist ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

I would like to add some emphasis to this.

We not only waste valuable bandwidth, but we discredit ourselves when we get into a war of quotes over whether the founding fathers approved of or disapproved of Christianity. We marginalize ourselves, and make enemies of groups that would otherwise allie with us in political battle -- the people Buffman identifies as "Enlightened, Secularist, Christians."

A much more productive (and honest) response would be to say, "All of these quotes that you have provided, showing that the founding fathers were Christian, are all well and good. But even as Christians, they believed that it is only proper to use the force of reason to sway somebody to one's own religion -- never the force of government."

Let's fight the battle on our turf, where we hold the strongest position, rather than wasting effort in conflicts that gain us no advantage.

Buffman

From Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason":

"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."

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt ; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

CaptainDave, d'naturalist & Alonso Fyfe

Thank you for your extremely thoughtful posts. I have long sought some method of explaining to my Christian friends how it was that the devout Christians/Deists of Revolutionary America differed from the overtly zealous, fundamentalist, Christians of today.

When I began my closer examination of the Library of Congress exhibit titled "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," I could not help but wonder why the exhibit's creators would select the words of Alexis de Tocqueville for such prominent emphasis and placement throughout the narrative while burying two, very negative, snippets about Thomas Paine near the very end of their extensive review. What could have motivated these government scholars to do this? Here are a few paragraphs from my essay concerning this observation:

(Extract)
Why does the narrative writer not see fit to reveal that Alexis de Tocqueville was a 25 year old, Catholic, of noble birth who, in 1831-32, spent only nine
months traveling though 17, of the then 24, states examining our penal systems. In 1835 and 1840, he wrote of his experiences and observations in his well researched and often prophetic books about "Democracy in America". (Hardly a first hand observer and interpreter of all the factors leading to the Revolution and founding of our constitutional form of democratic government...especially considering that he would not have been welcomed, or allowed, in the majority of the pre-Revolutionary colonies because of his "Papist" beliefs.)

Additionally, before the fact rather than after, Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that America would have difficulty coming to terms with the slavery issue. In France, only one interpretation of the Christian Bible was officially sanctioned by the government. Mr. de Tocqueville suggested that single, dogmatic, interpretations offered stabilizing influences not found where multiple ones existed. In his second volume on the American democracy he wrote, " There are religions that are false and very absurd, but it may be affirmed that any religion which remains within the circle I have just traced, without pretending to go beyond it (as many religions have attempted to do, for the purpose of restraining on every side the free movement of the human mind)..."; and, "This is especially true of men living in free countries..."; and, "Religious nations are therefore naturally strong on the very point on which democratic nations are weak; this shows of what importance it is for men to preserve their religion as their conditions become more equal."

Would these sentiments indicate a man who understood or who would support the separation of church and state? Not hardly! Would they indicate a proponent of church-state collusion. Most definitely! Perhaps that is why his words were selected for use by the exhibit rather than those of his "Enlightenment" countryman, Voltaire(1694-1778), who wrote," If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other's throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace." Voltaire went on to write, "Of all religion, Christianity is without doubt the one that should inspire tolerance most, although, up to now, the Christians have been the most intolerant of men." It was Voltaire's words that vibrated in the minds of our Founding Fathers as well as across the land, not those of the 1835 and 1840 Mr. de Tocqueville. One could easily claim that de Tocqueville found American Democracy and religious dogma antithetical. (If that claim be true, it is all the more reason to wonder why this specific Frenchman's
thoughts were placed where they were within the exhibit. It would appear to serve but one purpose, to help support the other questionable contentions made by this narrative's author and throughout the exhibit.)

These two narratives[about T.P.] devote themselves to the "pious" Americans who called "The Age of Reason" (not published until 1794), the "Atheist's Bible." Yet Thomas Paine was an avowed believer in one God, "and no more," and hoped for a happiness beyond this life. How many of these so-called "pious" people had been Tory sympathizers during the War? How many were terrified at the results of the French Revolution and the loss of a Monarchy? How many already held great enmity for Mr. Paine because of his direct and acerbic attacks on them or the institutions they supported? (A truly "pious" Christian loves his fellow man and turns the other cheek. Obviously these cited people were either not Christians, or not pious. Maybe Paine exposed Federalist, non-democratic, republican hypocrites within the current American administration as well as unrepentent Tories. The exhibit does not inform us.)

Paine's "Common Sense", a 50 page pamphlet, was published on January 10, 1776 and distributed throughout the country by the tens-of-thousands. It became the war-cry of the revolutionary movement. In addition to calling for a declaration of independence from England, it "urged the colonies to establish in North America a haven of refuge for the oppressed peoples of the world." (John Adams had already called for such independence, but perhaps not as effectively for reasons that came to light later.) George Washington wrote, when referring to information received from Virginia, that "Common Sense is working a powerful change there in the minds of many men." Paine fans have even made a viable case that Thomas Jefferson plagiarized many of Thomas Paine's thoughts and words when drafting the Declaration of Independence.

If "Common Sense" helped to provide the philosophical and practical backbone for commencing the American Revolution, then it must be claimed that Paine's series of thirteen " The American Crisis" articles gave the country, and especially the rag-tag, badly beaten and thoroughly disspirited Continental Army of December 1776, the moral imperative and justification to carry on to victory. Who does not know the opening line and many of the others contained in that first"Crisis" article? General Washington commanded that the article be read to his men on the eve of their attack on the Hessian forces just outside Trenton. Just a few of the lines are: "These are the times that try men's souls...What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value...I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish,..." (How can any exhibit viewer possibly hope to understand the role of religion in the Founding of the American Republic without first understanding Paine's views on religion?)

Why has the exhibit treated Thomas Paine in the manner it has? If George Washington is known as the Father of his Country, then Thomas Paine could easily have been called the Father, or Guiding Light, of the American Revolution. Could it be because Paine's expression of religious convictions had to be discredited so it would seem that they had no role or any influence on the 'Founding of the American Republic'?

Why has a complete Alexis de Tocqueville quote been added shortly after Mr. Paine's narratives and just one entry before the end of the final section? Why are these beliefs of an anti-democratic 1830's French visitor chosen to open and close the exhibit on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" in favor of America's foremost democrat. How odd! Or is it?
(End extract)

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt ; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt ; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;

I hope this helps to amplify why I selected "The Age of Reason" lines I did to open this post. The Christians of the Revolutionary Era were men and women of integrity. They could only be devout Christians by first being honest with themselves. Thus, to be honest with themselves, they had to separate religious divine Providence from secular political realities. One of those prime secular realities was that the collusion between religion and government had historically resulted in the oppression and enslavement of humanity.

Arrowman

As always, Alonzo has put his finger on it. The debate over the Christianity or otherwise of the FFs is [can be] a nasty distraction from the main point.

Fundies can come up with a zillion quotes to support the argument "they were all Christians [just like me]" and even though I agree that the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary, that case can be difficult to make to an audience which really doesn't want to follow the bouncing ball over another zillion quotes from the other side.

Bottom line is - it doesn't matter a scrap whether they were Christians or not. What matters is what they did. And what they did, was establish a religiously neutral nation.

Put it another way - when the fundies can come up with a quote that says "I am a Christian and I believe this nation should endorse Christianity as its State religion", they win. Until then, it's smoke and mirrors and we should be wary of letting them lure us into that trap.

Oresta

A sidebar to this excellent discussion regarding the famous/infamous "Creator" paragraph of the DoI:
Jefferson's first draft of that section of the DoI, delivered to Adams on June 19, 1776 to Adams for review, read:
We hold these truths to be [Here J. had crossed out "sacred & undeniable"] self evident; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that egual creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable...
Two days later, with Adam's suggestions incorporated, Jefferson delivered this version to Franklin for review:
We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights...

It would seem that Adam's critical clause "endowed by their creator" was intended to lend greater legitimacy to Jefferon's assertion that human creation comes with rights that cannot be taken away. Certainly, it would be difficult, given what we know of Adams - The A and S Acts of his administration notwithstanding - to argue that Adams was asserting that we were independent of George III by virtue of Divine Right.

I agree with the above posts that we should not get into the trick bag with theist about whether founders were theists or not because that is irrelevant to what they were about, which was to establish a secular government that denied explicitly the concept of Divine Right.

Likewise, we should not waste energy arguing the meaning/intent of the creator clause in the DoI.
Within the context of the entire paragraph:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nothing here about rights to worship, God, our government under soverignty of a creator. Nothing.
And of course, the kicker:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

If it isn't already, the above should be engraved on our neural structures, and any time some clod mentions to us "Creator" in the DoI as evidence for the founding of a Christian nation, we should ask him/her to quote the full paragraph wherein this term resides. While we're at it, we should ask him if he/she can point out all the other nouns in that passage which are capitalized (as was wont for eighteenth century prose) and whether that might cast the founders' use of "Creator" in a different light other than as a diety.