Guest Blogger: Romney's Founders
by Geoffrey R. Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago
Mitt Romney’s recent reflections on the role of religion in American politics implicitly called to mind a disturbingly distorted version of history that has become part of the conventional wisdom of American politics in recent years.
That version of history suggests that the Founders intended to create a “Christian Nation,” and that we have unfortunately drifted away from that vision of the United States. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Those who promote this fiction confuse the Puritans, who intended to create a theocratic state, with the Founders, who lived 150 years later. The Founders were not Puritans, but men of the Enlightenment. They lived not in an Age of Faith, but in an Age of Reason. They viewed issues of religion through a prism of rational thought.
To be sure, there were traditional Christians among the Founders, including such men as John Jay, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Most of the Founders, however, were not traditional Christians, but deists who were quite skeptical of traditional Christianity. They believed that a benevolent Supreme Being had created the universe and the laws of nature and had given man the power of reason with which to discover the meaning of those laws. They viewed religious passion as irrational and dangerously divisive, and they challenged, both publicly and privately, the dogmas of traditional Christianity.
Benjamin Franklin, for example, dismissed most of Christian doctrine as “unintelligible.” He believed in a deity who “delights” in man’s “pursuit of happiness.” He regarded Jesus as a wise moral philosopher, but not necessarily as a divine or divinely inspired figure. He viewed all religions as more or less interchangeable in their most fundamental tenets, which he believed required men to treat each other with kindness and respect.
Thomas Jefferson was a thoroughgoing skeptic who valued reason above faith. He subjected every religious tradition, including his own, to careful scrutiny. He had no patience for talk of miracles, revelation, and resurrection. Like Franklin, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral philosopher, but insisted that Jesus’ teachings had been distorted beyond all recognition by a succession of “corruptors,” such as Paul, Augustine, and Calvin. He regarded such doctrines as predestination, trinitarianism, and original sin as “nonsense,” “abracadabra” and “a deliria of crazy imaginations.” He referred to Christianity as “our peculiar superstition” and maintained that “ridicule” was the only rational response to the “unintelligible propositions” of traditional Christianity.
John Adams, who identified most closely with the early Unitarians, also believed that the original teachings of Jesus had been sound, but that Christianity had subsequently gone awry. He wrote to Jefferson that the essence of his religious beliefs was captured in the phrase, “Be just and good.” As President, Adams signed a treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, stating unambiguously that “the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
George Washington was respectful of traditional Christianity, but he did not have much use for it. His personal papers offer no evidence that he believed in biblical revelation, eternal life, or Jesus’ divinity. Clergymen who knew Washington well bemoaned his skeptical approach to Christianity. Bishop William White, for example, admitted that no “degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in Christian revelation.”
Tom Paine, the author of Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason, insisted that “the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian religion,” because it “is free from those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason.” Paine explained that deism’s creed “is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests. It honours Reason as the choicest gift of God to man” and “it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.” Paine dismissed Christianity as “a fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.” In Paine’s view, traditional Christianity had “served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.”
These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and “politically incorrect” to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders. The fable that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is just that – a fable.
It is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence does not invoke Jesus, or Christ, or Our Father, or the Almighty, but the “Laws of Nature,” “Nature’s God,” the “Supreme Judge,” and “Divine Providence,” all phrases that belong to the tradition of deism. The Declaration of Independence is not a Puritan or Calvinist or Methodist or Baptist or Protestant or Catholic or Christian document, but a document of the Enlightenment. It is a statement that deeply and intentionally invokes the language of American deism. It is a document of its own time, and it speaks eloquently about what Americans of that time believed.
The Constitution goes even further. It does not invoke the deity at all. Unlike the Puritan documents of the early seventeenth century, it makes no reference whatever to God. It cites as its ultimate source of authority not “the command of God,” but “We the People,” the stated purpose of the Constitution is not to create a government “according to the will of God” but to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Significantly, the only reference to religion in the 1789 Constitution expressly prohibits the use of any religious test for public office.
The Founders were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But they also understood that religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter that had no place in the political life of a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state. They would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring “faith-based” initiatives. They would have been quite happy to tolerate Mitt Romney’s Mormonism – as long as he keeps it out of our government.
Written By:KipEsquire On December 11, 2007 9:57 AM Written By:Derek On December 11, 2007 12:53 PM
And don't forget the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by unanimous vote of the Senate in 1796, with no subsequent outcry in government or public. In fact it was only the 3rd unanimous vote of the Senate out of more than 300 votes. The treaty explicitly states that the Unites States was not founded upon the Christian religion.
Nothing in Romney's speech should cause anyone to “call to mind" the notion that the United States is a “Christian nation." Nowhere does he suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that the U.S. is a Christian nation. Rather, he acknowledges our religious roots in a fashion similar to Stone's post. For example, he quotes Adams as saying that “our constitution was made for a moral and religious people," a sentiment that falls squarely within the historical tradition sketched by Stone. So too with Romney's assertion that “No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
Read the speech. Romney talks about his personal belief in Jesus, but he does so because those very beliefs have been called into question. There's nothing in the speech that ties his personal Christian beliefs to our founding or historical traditions. He celebrates our nation's diverse religious tradition.
It's no wonder that so many people view liberals as hostile toward religion. When a public figure refers our nation's religious roots, Stone and others inevitably mischaracterize the reference as ahistorical and in tension with our traditions. Stone's post sets up a straw man about Romney and knocks it down. It does little to advance the public dialogue in this country about the proper role of religion in the public square.
You wrote: "The Constitution goes even further. It does not invoke the deity at all."
I think that you need to read the last sentence very carefully:
"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"
Who were they referring to when the said the Year of our Lord?
Mark,
Year of our Lord is the English translation of "Anno Domini," the "A.D." that accompanies the year (1787). I don't think you can take this as evidence that they were "invoking the deity," but rather using the standard calendar of the time.
Well: Professor Stone's "analysis" confirms this observation: "All beliefs aren't true, and all truth is not believed." Professor Stone should do more homework before throwing historical rocks.
For a more balanced and historically accurate, constitutionally correct, analysis, see:
http://www.constitutionallycorrect.com/archive/2007/12/14/580.aspx
JJV
"For a more balanced and historically accurate, constitutionally correct, analysis, see:
http://www.constitutionallycorrect.com/archive/2007/12/14/580.aspx"
Following this link, one eventually ends up at the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pro-life, pro-Christian, front group with a very clear agenda - push Christianty into politics. The "response" to Stone's essay was not even really a response, just a claim that Stone was wrong and biased.
I have spent many years watching the influence of religion, especially Christian religion, increase it's starnglehold on public policy. The rise of the Dominionists to positons of power and their ability to inject their peculiar version of morality into the public debate is a great threat to democracy and the Constitution.
Rejection of rational thought in favor of mysticism can have only one outcome - totalitarian rule. As Sinclair Lewis noted, whne fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. Revisionism of history to publicly portray the founders as Christians first and patriots second is a significant step down this road.
Everywhere I look, the organizations supporting this flawed view are also waving the flag, and carrying the cross, and surprise, surprise are very pro-business. Christofascism anyone? It's here and it'son your doorstep. Merry Christmas.
MWNT
Great post!
"George Washington was respectful of traditional Christianity, but he did not have much use for it."
He had no use for it whatsoever. He was "respectful" of Martha's devout Anglicanism, which was the only reason he went to church at all.
Multiple first-hand accounts document that Washington refused to kneel in church, never took communion and often left the services early.
Cheers...