D’ Souza vs. Shermer: Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?
18 January 2008
D’ Souza vs. Shermer: Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?
You should never do anything wicked and then lay in on your brother, when it is just as convenient to lay it on another boy. -- Mark Twain.
On the campus of Caltech in Pasadena during the afternoon of December 9, 2007, conservative Christian author Dinesh D’ Souza debated libertarian skeptic writer and social scientist Michael Shermer. Is religion a force for good or evil was the title, but the subtopic was, can a person be good without God?
The quick answer to both queries, of course was yes, no and maybe. The more difficult solutions appeared to depend on more telling matters such as one’s view of the God of Christianity. Religious debates are becoming common across the nation. Recently, D’ Souza debated Daniel Dennett (“Is God a Human Invention”) on the Tufts University campus in Boston, Massachusetts, and Shermer v. Douglas Jacoby (“Does God Exist?”) during the 2007 International Apologetics Conference.
Dinesh D’ Souza is the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Investor’s Business Daily called him one of the “top young policy makers in the country.” Among a list of other achievements he served as senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House and managing editor of Policy Review. He has authored several books. The most recent, What’s So Great About Christianity?
Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American and an Adjunct Professor in the School of Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate University. He also has authored a number of books including recently, The Mind of the Market, Why Darwin Matters, Evolution and the Case Against Intelligent Design, Why People Believe in Weird Things and The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Share, Care and Follow the Golden Rule. D’ Souza and Shermer debated this same topic at the University of Oregon. (see www.skeptic.com)
The event was advertised as one of the “liveliest hosted by the Skeptic Society, mixing science, religion, politics and culture.” The usual twenty-minute rule for opening remarks was applied to each debater followed by five-minute rebuttal. Afterwards the two debaters sat across from each other between a moderator and asked questions of each other for another twenty minutes. Two microphones were placed near the front and audience asked questions for another thirty minutes. When strongly moved clapping interrupted both debaters. The audience was respectful and absorbed in the points and counterpoints. Dinesh D’ Souza representing the “good” side of religion and he went first after it was announced that Shermer’s scientific pleadings with god for sunshine, fair weather and no rain had not been violated. The crowd broke out clapping with injured innocence since the majority in the audience favored religion as a benefit to society.
D’ Souza began by explaining he was a fellow skeptic and that no scriptures or biblical revelations would be used in his arguments. He protested that “religion or Christianity is often presented on college and university campuses as low and bad with dark things to hide.” He was not antiscience but said, “science was only capable of answering certain questions, and that morality is both natural and universal and discoverable without religion, yet its source is ultimately divine.” Much of his presentation focused on the global triumph of Christianity. If you are familiar with Rodney Stark’s book “For the Glory of God” you might think Stark and D’ Souza were blood relatives.
D’ Souza attacked atheism. He said atheism is starting to be alarmed by the growing abusive power of religion around the world, and atheists today have grown more outspoken and “ones like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett more militant.” His reference to Dawkins was particularly biting. “Dawkins says the great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” D’ Souza continued to press his point. “But the odds of us being here in the universe are so fantastic that some kind of serious explanation is required. Where does the confidence of these atheists come from that permits them to make such wild proclamations?” Souza respected modern science and recognized that it was the best way to accumulate knowledge and provide proven benefits to society through scientific enlightenment. But science has gone too far in declaring that God is dead in a universe where the massive improbability for our existence is too great to be overcome by science. Victor Stenger (a physicist) asks, “So where did the laws of physics come from? They came from nothing,” he says. D’ Souza admitted that was too much for him, along with the theory of the big bang. Science is like a “universal acid” that eats through just about every religious tradition. Then he proceeded to shift suddenly and appeal to the God of Christianity. This bold move narrowed discussions that followed to Christianity of the West (D’ Souza and Shermer mentioned the Muslim or Jewish religion only in passing).
D’ Souza’s main arguments were the following. Christian ethics imposes strict commandments and forecasts hell (described in terms of isolation from God’s goodness) for those who do not abide by them. Western civilization was built from Christianity and was responsible for creating values and institutions that secular people cherish. “Two pillars built this modern civilization we treasure today. One came from the Greeks and pre-Christian Rome. The other one came from Jerusalem.” This includes Judaism and Christianity and he argued that Jerusalem was more important than Judaism. Slowly over time Christianity took the backward civilizations, gave them learning and order, stability and dignity. “Our laws, politics, arts and calendar and moral and cultural priorities came through the last two thousand years of Christianity. Themes of suffering, slavery, inequality, and other evils were confronted by Christians and the solutions became the core of human values. From the results of Christianity three assumptions can be made,” D’ Souza indicated. (1) The universe is rational, (2) the universe is lawful, expressed in mathematical rules; and (3) we are rational because out there in the universe we mirror our Creator.
“If you are an atheist,” he said “you still have to take it on faith.” Atheists have no way of knowing if God ordained our moral codes. He claimed that all the killings by Muslims and Christians during the Crusades and wars between Protestants and Catholics and the Inquisition were far over stated. Horrific images of the Inquisition are largely a myth. He pointed out that in the Spanish Inquisition during 350 years maybe 2000 people lost their lives (five or six a year), and according to Levack, an authority on the Salem Witch Trials, maybe eighteen were killed by Christian precepts, so D’ Souza said, “let’s keep the numbers in proportion.”
D’ Souza left out some key historical facts that would have weaken his arguments considerably, of course, but that is the nature of debating. In both the Spanish prosecutions and Salem Witch Trials Stark’s data showed the least frequency and intensity of killings compared to witch trials in Europe and persecution in Switzerland and elsewhere. He asked, “how about the Thirty Years War? It was mainly fueled by political contests of power between the Holy Roman Empire and the Protestant states in Germany.” He turned these abuses around and claimed secular and atheist fanatics have committed greater crimes than the Christians. “Atheists are still trying to run away from five decades of killing over 100 millions relying on survival of the fittest or struggles for political power (speaking of Russia, Germany, China and Cambodia). Bin Laden in his “wildest imitation could not do as much damage.” D’ Souza closed his opening statements by dramatically saying … “Thank God for Christianity.”
Shermer opened his position on the negative gains of religion by asking for a show of hands in the audience. “How many here today believe in a God?” Looking around on the main floor and up into the balcony he estimated a “sizable majority.” He suspected that nearby Fuller Theological Seminary encouraged evangelicals to attend the debate and show solidarity. Shermer characterized himself as an agnostic (not the atheist that D’ Souza kept talking about) and defined the difference between an agnostic and an atheistic. He used humor to make his point. “An agnostic is an atheistic without balls.” Throughout his presentation he continued to use soft humor to pulverization D’ Souza’s points. Actually they both needled each other. (eg. Shermer—“Dinesh you made some good points but they were a little stretched. D’ Souza—“Michael you’re starting to get your facts straight.”)
The new atheism would drop away Shermer predicted if “God would do something simple like make a large deposit in a Swiss Bank” to demonstrate His power. Shermer told the audience that he attended Pepperdine and knocked on doors passing out gospel literature, “Amway with Bibles.” After college he became enlightened and now considers himself a nonbeliever since Christianity does not answer the bigger questions; it only guesses at them as found in Genesis. As Winston Churchill said about Americans, “They will always do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else first.” The same goes for religion and that was his experience. In the meantime, Shermer said, “science plods along slowly answering questions about life and the universe and trying to place ourselves in the mix.” Shermer reminded D’ Souza that “Science is not a belief system but a tool for finding answers to important questions.” In looking for the supernatural he observed, “People pray for cancer cures but not for replacement limbs when they come back from the war, or if they do, no one has verified if limbs have ever been replaced by the supernatural. Why is that? Is God a God of cancer, and then only now and then, and not of broken limbs? Salamanders grow new limbs so it should be easy.” According to a Cambridge University study Shermer said there are an estimated 33,000 different forms of Christianity in the world all claiming to have the truth and not just Protestants disagreeing with Catholics but Protestants fighting other Protestants. “Wars are fought over the most minor religious points. Religions keep coming up with troublesome doctrines and teachings.”
Shermer told of his recent experience of renting the movie, “Amazing Grace,” and discovered how Wilberforce fought against the religionist for decades to pass antislavery laws in England. “Morality is strictly a human creation, subject to all sorts of cultural influences and social constructions, just as other human creations are like music and art. Virtually many actions for morality are driven by tribal needs and other factors in society. Christians will come around to doing the moral thing not because of God but because minorities seeking equality from Christians who abuse their power and then later take credit for having taken the moral high ground.”
Then Shermer mounted a few of the moral failures in Christianity to make his point that not all “religious tribes” foster or practice the right kind of morality that D’ Souza spoke about. How do you justify sex with thirteen-year old girls by fundamental Mormons fives times older living in polygamy in Arizona, or the Pentecostal Jesus camps training young people to be warriors for Christ wearing war paints, or evangelicals that bomb abortion clinics or Catholic priest’s sexual abuse of young choir boys and women seeking counseling? If you want to do a body count you have to consider the 14 million killed in World War I over deep-seated religious views between Catholics and Protestants. World War II also had a religious construction between Japan and America. You have to recognize that dictators seek power by substituting one idea for another that creates moral precepts, all within a religious context. Go back in history to find the problems. The Old Testament teaches that men and women found in adultery must be stoned to death, or disobedient children must be killed, boys are worth more than girls and the ancient Hebrews treated women like modern Taliban’s today in Afghanistan. “If this Old Testament morality was true today where would our Senators, televangelists and preachers be? Read Leviticus 18:22!” Slavery was also justified for centuries by both Old and New Testament interpretations. Bible passages were used to support whatever the culture wanted. Christian preachers torment gays openly and in subtle ways. They preach to the gays, “like Rick Warren; come to our church because you are sick and in need of a comforter, and saving souls because we love them. Does all this mean that the God that creates the stars is now more interested in the gonads and whether or not gay people should marry? There is absolutely no sociological data that Christians are more honest or moral than non-believers, agnostics or atheists. In fact, it is just the opposite. America which prides itself in being the most religious but has the highest divorce rate, teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, homicide, suicide and other dysfunctions than eighteen other developed democratic nations. Obvious religion is not a prophylactic against those kinds of things; it is not a moral guideline to control those issues.”
Another example that Shermer used was a recent study from the American Academy of Family Medicine of 1820 practicing physicians to determine if religion had any effect on whether a physician choose to practice in an under-served community. He said “last August it was found that actually the less religious or none at all were more inclined to serve the underserved. The study found that physicians who were more spiritual were more likely to serve the under-served, but they went into medicine in the first place for that purpose.”
Shermer argued from the benefits derived from understanding evolution. “Evolution is making progress in explaining family values and behaviors that form the substrates of morality. Science is filling in the edges. Humans share this with other animals such as apes, monkeys, dolphins and whales. These basic social behaviors include attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peace-making to name a few. These are the beginning ethical and moral structures that make up the core of morality in humans.” Then he asked D’ Souza, “do we get these moral precepts by hearing voices or by being reflective on moral thoughts?” Where do we get these, it’s not from the Bible otherwise we’d have no agreement in society and culture. Look at September 11, it’s an eye for an eye and religious fanatics are willing to take their own lives to destroy innocence others. “The point is that we keep searching as scientists for better morality and equality whereas religion stops and quotes from the Bible.”
Shermer closed his opening arguments by referring to Rabbi Hillel, the influential scholar in Jewish history, who lived before Christ. He said, “this is the basis for morality. That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow.” Most of our morality “comes from commonsense and the moral sense in our brains and conscience.” He quoted from Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, “Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical process of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.”
In the discussions across from each other Shermer missed or let past what might have been a significant debating position. D’ Souza explained to the audience that he like Shermer is committed to evolution and the geological record. Along with Francis Collins, D’ Souza believes that evolution remains the “best and most persuasive account of our origins, including that humans have descended from creatures.” (see D’ Souza. What’s so Great About Christianity. p. 148.) Thus, recent scientific concepts that are developing around the trajectory of understanding core behaviors and genetics in relationship to the origin of religious foundations, ethics and morality are being explored by science.
The questions from the audience were interesting, ranging from asking Shermer if he believed in an afterlife, to asking D’ Souza why is religion entering the presidential campaign in a country keyed to separation of church and state. One question to D’ Souza asked why he thought natural law before Christianity did not need the supernatural and what does God have against replacing limbs. Another one asked, If God created the earth how do you account for the mass extinction when 90 percent of land dwelling vertebrates were destroyed during the Permian geological period and what does God bringing to the table to improve morality. One man commented to D’ Souza that he thought the Doctrine of Eternal Judgment was cruel. “Why should I lower my morality to accept such cruelty?” The two hours was interesting and thought provoking.
In our own party on our return to Loma Linda we discussed the performance of each position taken by the debaters. We agreed that both experts did a cracking good job battering against the wind but probably very few people changed their opinions after such a marvelous experience with words and ideas. We also agreed the topic could not have been of a wilder, heartier interest than the one chosen. So in conclusion you could say Christians and conservatives probably felt the balm of Gilead in disguise with D’ Souza’s pain-killers, and liberals and skeptics continued with their deepest anxieties like the Christians intact with Shermer ringing in their ears. The debate was like a good scrub down with cold water and we probably consumed enough oxygen and glucose in the brain during those two hours of sitting to equal a run up Mount Wilson near Pasadena over a twisting mountain road.
Search
- frank7 on John the Baptist
- Anonymous@11 on Our Biggest North American Division Crisis Isn’t Theological
- Tom Zwemer on Why Jesus Died
- plm on Our Biggest North American Division Crisis Isn’t Theological
- Daneen Akers on Our Biggest North American Division Crisis Isn’t Theological
- Don Rhoads on Our Biggest North American Division Crisis Isn’t Theological
- Mark Kubo on John the Baptist
- Gary Krause on John the Baptist
- Gary Krause on John the Baptist
- pat travis on Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Joe, you did an excellent reporting job. As I am unable to view the debate on glacial-speed dial-up, congratulations on your summary.
It would have been very informative to have been there when the debaters seemed equally proficient in giving their views.
It should be obvious to everyone who has lived past the 20s, to realize that Christianity does not make people good, and integrity and morals are not virtues limited to one's religion or absence.
D'Souza's premise that "Western civilization was built from Christianity and was responsible for creating values and institutions that secular people cherish" is a perennial argument without justification. Long before Christianity, the Greeks gave us the foundation for democracy and it was a gradual evolving concept that never wholly became realized, and certainly not during most of Christianity's history as it became more powerful, it became more destructive.
Who, if not Christians, prompted the expulsion of both Jews and Muslims, culminating in the year that America was discovered by Columbus? As for the Inquisition, if you are speaking of the Spanish one under Torquemada, there are varying estimates of actual killings, but to be robbed of all your property, home, and having to flee to another country was not exactly a vacation, either. It was Germany's Christians who were fiercely anti-Semitic that led to the Holocaust.
Both Atheists (NOT agnostics--which is not always a differentiation) and Christians must accept many things on faith.
Especially apt is the statement Shermer made in relating to Wilberforce and the movie, "Amazing Grace." "Morality is strictly a human creation, subject to all sorts of cultural influences ...Virtually many many actions for morality are driven by tribal needs..." The Golden Rule, a universal concept long before the Hebrew Bible incorporated it, has proved to be one of the simplest, and yet most profound rules that if applied, would obviate any further laws.
James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, stressed a "zeal for different opinions concerning religion," and never adopted a biblical outlook (although there are many who refer to the U.S. as a "Christian nation"). He never ascribed to the Bible sinfulness or human chioice; rather, that this was the fixed and unalterable nature of humans."
Which goes back to the concept of the "Fall" and sin. The agnostic would say that this is the normal behavior of humans. After all, this is the only world we know, and to assume a "Utopia" is a dream that is ancient. This the foundation of our government today: humans will, inevitably, have interests that do not agree with others; but in the compromises that must be made, each one will eventually benefit.
If Christianity were to prevail and become the majority opinion in politics and government (as it has in past foreign nations and still exists today) how many Christians would welcome such a government? And which of the many Christian denominations would you choose to lead it?
Elaine
I'm not sure about the way you pose the question. I don't want to be without arms or eyes. Tom
Elaine,
You state..."James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, stressed a "zeal for different opinions concerning religion," and never adopted a biblical outlook (although there are many who refer to the U.S. as a "Christian nation"). He never ascribed to the Bible sinfulness or human chioice; rather, that this was the fixed and unalterable nature of humans."
Perhaps you are referring more to Jefferson. Madison was a graduate of The College of New Jersey to be later known as Presbyterian run Princeton. He was trained by John Witherspoon (Presbyterian), another founding father and considered the ministry at one point. It is not shown that he forsook the Christian faith or his earlier training and he attended church.
As to "separation of church and state" yes. As forsaking "the scriptural fall and human depravity" yet not to the extent of "some" calvinist that "all resemblence" to the creator was lost...it is not evident.
No, it was not Jefferson, but James Madison, in the Federalist Papers that I quoted (Thomas L. Pangle, University of Texas, in "The Great Debate: Advocates and Opponent of the Amerian Constitution" from The Great Courses by the Teaching Company).
One can have attended seminary and still not hold "traditional" Christian dogma. Whether he forsook the Christian faith is not relevant, IMO, in the designing of the Constitution if it was intended to forever separate government and religion. Even the staunchest Christians do not consistently desire to see that wall broken.
Elaine,
I suggest that Madison did say in #55 that "there is a degree of depravity in mankind that deserves a degree of circumspection and distrust." Where might that "language" have come from?
As in an article on this website ( Ethical Standards, Mores, and Violation of Religious Freedom)I point out that "separation" was not "elimination" but primarily a state church or government financial support of religion or it's teachers thus the "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments."
The term "depravity" is not limited to religious believers. Nor are moral individuals only those who are religious.
As for "elimination" if I used it to indicate "separation" it was not intended and I do know the difference. None of this nation's early founders ever spoke in favor of the elimination of religion, ONLY that separation be incorporated in the constitution.
From Madison's background I suggest it is obvious where "depravity" is coming from..."the fall"
"Elimination" simply means none desired the elimination of religion from the "public square."...it simply was not to be a national church... "respecting an establishment" or religion supported financially by government.
Previous article mentioned was on the previous Spectrum site.
PS. Another good thought from #51.
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Regardless who wrote the book of Genesis. Morality was a known attribute in the days of Jacob and Joseph. Long before James Madison. See Gen 34: 30 and Gen. 39:9
We are accountable for all that we do and all that we left undone.
Thank God, He has provided a divine solution to our ills. Tom
Pat, please be so kind as to give the source of Madison's use of "The Fall."
In my previous citations, the direct transcription of the lecture on Madison: "Humans are by nature so eager to hurt one another and even to kill one another, that they will start doing so at almost any excuse. Madison NEVER (caps.supl) says that this is a sign of human sin or sinfulness, or the fall. He does not for a moment adopt a biblical outlook. Rather, Madison says that this is the fixed and unalterable nature of humans, something for which humans are not responsible. He never suggests that the proper response or remedy is prayer or hope for divine redemption."
(From Federalist Papers. 9 and 10.)
Elaine,
I am sorry but I do not see the correlation. Madison was a politician not a pastor in the Fed. Papers. Must one give a sermon stating the source of the depravity? I am saying it seems obvious to me with his training at "Princeton" and with Wintherspoon the Presbyterian "post graduate" to initially be a minister... where the language "depravity" came from (that is... at the original fall). It would seem quite obvious to any "professing" Episcopalian or Presbyterian of the day. And yes, it is now an "unalterable nature of humans." So?
52 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were listed as Christians.Madison is recorded as an Episcopalian.
Why the need to "historically reframe" the implicit?
Elaine,
Did not have time last night or the desire. I have retrieved the quote you are referring to in #10.Please tell me how this "propensity" of the "nature of man" differs from the Christian concept of the "depravity" that resulted from the fall. Please show me where Madison says it is not humanities "fault."
#10 is an excellent chapter on why the founders FEARED "pure democracy" or "majority public/citizen rule" however and chose to offer us a Representative Constitutional Republic.
"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."
regards
Hi Tom,
Noticed your squeezed in comment. This strand was questioning if "Religion" is a source for good.
I suggest that there are those who believe the American Republic has been "in earlier times and 'at times' present" a source for good with a system of individual rights and stable government for pluralistic peoples that allows them to cohabitate in relative peace and prosperity.
What is taking place by "historic revision" is to take away the "religious underpinnings,contributions and principles" of the freedoms offerred in the American Republic and make them but secular and humanist...thus for example the need to make "depravity" take on a new meaning.
This country is not a "Christian Nation" by Law/Constitution.
It is a country that was formed on both secular and religious thought (Primarily Judeo-Christian) in which a group of "professed Christians" ALLOWED for "Religious Liberty." Almost all of the signers 52/55 were professing Christians that offerred us the Constitution and that first "Bill of Rights."
Yes, morality far exceeded Madison but in my opinion by God's longsuffering and education of individuals He allowed a self governing nation without an earthly King or Pope to come into being. That idea was both significant and was/is hated.
Without individual morality, reponsibility, as well as mercy among the citizenry it will fail as people look to central authorities once again as the fountain of "moral and economic provision." Thus their desire that while offerring religious liberty they at the same time understood the necessity of religious moral underpinnings and not the exclusion of religion from the "public square."
So, In my view "informed" religion has at times been a source for good fruit in the "secular" realm evidenced in one way by the formation of this "imperfect" country I love...but sin is a reproach for both people and nation.
All nations will fail but the Kingdom of Christ will remain!
Thank God for salvation in Him.
"in my opinion by God's longsuffering and education of individuals He allowed a self governing nation without an earthly King or Pope to come into being. That idea was both significant and was/is hated. "
It is your opinion that God is in charge of everything. It cannot be proved or disproved, why waste the time? We only know what we can see and observe in our world today and by studying the past it is rather evident that there has always been strife and violence in the world. People of differing persuasions will conclude it is lack of religion or because of it.
Religious belief has been shown to be a toxic and poisonous atmosphere for millions and is still seen in much of the Middle East today. Centuries earlier, wars and violence was also part of the Hebrew history when, according to their accounts, their god ordered the destruction of the entire world, save 8, in the flood; when they were ordered to take over other tribes' land for their own because their god had given it to them in perpetuity. Was that not because of the belief in their god? This is the major cause of the continuing conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians that will never end. Each side claims that God gave them their land! If that is not sufficient religious reason for violence and murders, is there another answer?
Yes, religion has produced marvelous things: great and beautiful music, and works of art, marvelous cathedrals, chartiable and selfless works and more. But it has a darker side which cannot be ignored. Is it human nature? How much influence does religious teachings lead to humans actions?
About the same amount "secular" thought did to Stalin.
PS. You are correct, I do not believe in a "neutral" universe subject only to man's will.
Pat
We are the sum of our history. Thank God the Virginians had control of Constitution and not the Bostonians.
The enlightenment was the immediate reference source--which of course Judeo-Christian religion played a significant role.
The United States is not a Christian nation. It is a constitutional democracy (representative) in which freedom of speak and religion are protected.
Certainly, the founders were churchmen just like politicians to day are churchmen. Their view was if the electorate can believe in God, they certainly can be persuaded to believe most anything.
Most were at best Deists. Did you ever read Thomas Jefferson's Bible? You can get much the same from the Boy Scouts of America. Tom
I would have to disagree with you on that issue Tom.
B. Franklin,Pa.; James Wilson,Pa.;H.Williamson,N.C.; and Jefferson,Va. are the only recorded diest or "possible deists."
The "rest" were "professing" Christians...52/55.
Also interesting is that some may not appreciate the education of these men. It is said that "in the 1700's an undergraduate freshman to William and Mary College had to be able to read and write and debate in Greek."
"John Jay applying to King's College in NY at 14 y.o. was required to translate the first 10 chapters of John from Greek into Latin."
Regards
Pat
I am not a history buff. But I understand that Dr. Rush a good friend of Franklin, Jefferson, and Thomas Payne were all diests. Dr. Rush was a leading thought leader among the revolutionaries. The only one I can name that would top John Jay was Samuel Zwemer. He was proficient in English, Dutch, German, French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. (By the way if you get a chance read Dutch the history of the Dutch in greater Chicago. Everytime either Samuel Zwemer or his father Adrian came to Chicago they caused such tension that they raised up another Dutch Reform Church. You will find even a reference to the Klooster clan in South Chicago.
More to the point, The Christians were the Mathers et al.
Their progeny apposed Thomas Jefferson. Thus the letter by Jefferson on the separation of church and state.
To be churched and to be Christian are two distinct characteristics. Best Regards, Tom
Some Dutch Reformed were Lansing and Yates N.Y.
By all means to be churched and Christian are separate however the churched in those days did not do so lightly.
I too believe in "separation" but not to the "extent" it has been revisioned today.
While it is commendable that there are those who wish to create an illusion that not only were the U.S. founders Christian, but that they were greatly influenced by religious beliefs, it is somewhat disengenuous and ignores the documented statements of those founders, to wit:
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787, wrote: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." In another letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote: "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." It is well-known that he removed all the supernatural events told about Jesus from the Bible and retained only his sayings. It can be purchased as "Jefferson's Bible."
John Adams was a Unitarian and flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote: "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" IN a letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination." (This was after Jonathan Edwards, the Puritan preacher had given his memorable sermon: "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.")
James Madison, called the father of the Constitution, had no conventional sense of Christianity. This, he wrote in 1785: "During almost fifteeen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits?...Pride and indolence in the Clergy...on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people...A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs tham not."
Benjamin Franklin: Although he received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. in his Autobiography he reveals his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets... I began to doubt Revelation itself...Some books against Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended...In short, I soon became a thorough Deist." He then recalls how Christians, after being persecuted by pagans, in turn became persecutors, then Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans.
Thomas Paine: This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Amnericans than any other writer. In his famous "The Age of Reason" he wrote: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church...Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."
Elaine
You sure do know your early American History and the "heathen" that formed the nation. Far better than to be left to the mercy of the Mathers, the Pat Robertson et al, even a Neal Wilson. Tom
Tom, I have the time to do the necessary research. There continues to be the fantasy of our nation being founded on Christians, and while they could be described as "Christian principles" that is because they were very well thought out and adopted English Common Law, beginning with the Magna Carta; plus John Locke, Montesquieu, and many others.
One interesting site I "Googled" gave the names and the order of citations by the Founders. Surprisingly, St. Paul was No. 1 and Montesquieu was second, followed by Blackstone (English Common Law) and John Locke. The internet is such a wonderful source and far quicker than a printed Encylopedia.
Elaine,
It seems to me that you are confusing your disdain for a “Christian Nation” being formed by law FROM a nation formed by a “majority of men” who “professed Christian principle and church membership” yet did not accept the concept of a National church or the funding of religious institutions or teachers. I have previously acknowledged the smaller number of professed deist.
They gave us both the “Establishment” and “Free exercise” clauses. They were not enemies of the “Christian faith” but the “historic misuse of it and religion.” Only God knows the degree of their spiritual sincerity but they certainly (as a whole) were not antithetical to Christianity and drew from it principles as well as Montesquieu, Blackstone, Locke and others. To deny that is to, in my opinion, reframe history…that is, the fact of "principles" of “Religion being a source for Good”, the original subject of this strand. None can deny secular or religious abuses in history.
"Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits. #6 of Madison’s “Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.”
PS. Sometimes it is also useful to know the "context" of various quotes retrieved from Google.
Pat
Theology is the study of God--the pre-existed One.
Religion is the behavior of man propelled by either imagination or revelation. We believe that Christianity is at once the Theology of a triune God revealed by Jesus Christ,testified to by the Apostles, and the human behavior fostered by His life and testimony.
Without question the framers of the Constitution were influenced by the long history of Christianity both the good and the bad. They tried to build a moral society separated from dogma and its ugly head of coercion from which they had just emerged. Tom
Pat
Theology is the study of God--the pre-existed One.
Religion is the behavior of man propelled by either imagination or revelation. We believe that Christianity is at once the Theology of a triune God revealed by Jesus Christ,testified to by the Apostles, and the human behavior fostered by His life and testimony.
Without question the framers of the Constitution were influenced by the long history of Christianity both the good and the bad. They tried to build a moral society separated from dogma and its ugly head of coercion from which they had just emerged. Tom
Pat, I heartily agree with your comment:
"Sometimes it is also useful to know the "context" of various quotes retrieved from Google."
Tom,
I totally agree.
Elaine,
I got most of mine from books but we can agree to disagree. However, I suggest neither of us wants "direct" religious organization input into government...any religion...leave it to the citizens.
Is this type of religion a force for good or evil?
Mike Huckabee's recent comments about the Constitution:
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."
This assault will offend both secularists and many of the Evangelicals. His wanting to amend the Constitution and put it "under God" is a brazen statement of where he would like to take our country. Our founding fathers were much wiser when they refused to cite the Bible or invoke the name of God in their charter. Such regression should waken all those on the Religious Right.
How about this...is "religion" really the issue or how this politician wants to attempt to be elected by "using religion."
I will not vote for Huckabee...to "liberal" for me.
How about Obama's creating a "kingdom" on earth? This should awaken all those on the "Religious Left."
Look out for politicians... one and all...be skeptical of their promises to gain office. All must take before they give...weather money or liberties.
Yes, we should be properly skeptical off politicians bearing gifts (promises). However, we should all continue to vote, knowing that there are no perfect candidates, just as there are no perfect voters.
Post new comment