One Nation Under God
JB Williams of theConservativeVoice.com has a terrific article this morning discussing the historical facts related to the faiths of our founding fathers.
He mentions the main founders who critics often cite as mere "deists" instead of Christians: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison. Williams writes of each:
He mentions the main founders who critics often cite as mere "deists" instead of Christians: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison. Williams writes of each:
A brief study of the founders own writings prove beyond any reasonable doubt that none of the notable founders fit this description. Thomas Paine talked about "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He stated that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism."Williams concludes with his main point:
Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; he was one of the chief proponents of a paid chaplain in Congress; and when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name in 1787, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone."
On May 2, 1778, George Washington charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." In a speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are." On June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that "without a humble imitation" of "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" we "can never hope to be a happy nation", as he resigned his post as Commander-in-Chief. Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.
Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government.
Thomas Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." As President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries.
James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In his letter to Attorney General Bradford, Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be "fervent advocates in the cause of Christ." Madison did allude to a "wall of separation," but contemporary writers frequently omit Madison’s own definition of that "wall", which according to Madison, was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.
Why was America formed as One Nation Under God? The answer is simple, yet of vital importance to every American, regardless of their religious beliefs. The answer begins with these two words, “self-governance”.I'm sure that this topic will draw fire from people who assert that I am promoting a "state religion." To suggest such a thing would be missing the point. The sole purpose of this topic is to debunk the myth that our founding fathers were not Christians and wanted our government to have nothing to do with religion.
Patrick Henry put it this way, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
John Adams said it this way, “We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775] and he later explained, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
The point is this - it is historically indisputable that America was born One Nation under God. It does not require faith, but instead common logic to understand why. Men without a moral compass are incapable of long-term self-governance. The founders knew it because they had seen it. Few modern Americans have experienced what life would be like in a godless society, void of morality, so they question it. Many Americans place their trust in man over God, so they pursue it.
10 Comments:
This is from an aritle written by Gene Garmen:
"Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary (1952) includes in the definition of Deist: "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation." There is no question Jefferson rejected the Bible as divine revelation and rejected the divinity of Jesus. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (see letter dated Sep. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature").
As President, Jefferson occasionally attended church services; but, he was not a communing member of any Christian church. Further, he refused to proclaim any national days of prayer or thanksgiving.
Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence."
You'll remember that Jefferson mutilated the Bible--leaving a perfect text for modern liberals to preach about "moral goodness" and "social action".
Then there's this excerpt by Michael Miller:
"Lets start with Ben Franklin, the true father of our country. This ultimate Enlightenment genius was the western world's most famous citizen. The man who defined electricity was America's leading writer, publisher, diplomat and humorist. "Poor Richard's Almanac" was one of the world's most influential publications. Franklin helped found so many institutions---public libraries, post offices, insurance companies---and made so many inventions---like the lightning rod and Franklin stove---that his vita fills whole books. He was the only man to sign the Big Three: The Declaration, the Treaty of Paris (which sealed the Revolution's victory) and the Constitution.
Ben Franklin was also the ultimate liberal. He signed the first abolitionist petition to Congress. Supremely tolerant, he loved beautiful women, fine food, and the French. He believed in freedom, diversity, the Enlightenment, and progress. He spoke with amusement of the wild oats he sowed as a youth, and of "the ladies" he courted while seducing France into helping the young America free itself from the British.
Then there's Tom Jefferson: brilliant, learned, master architect, ultimate phrase turner, Lockean liberal. Nobody stoked the leftist rhetoric of revolution and democracy, equality and progress better than Jefferson. He was a slave-owner... But he also consorted with one, the spirited Sally Hemmings, with whom he had at least three children."
I'm sure there's no need to begin digesting the moral failings of of our forefathers that any objective and historically accurate biography will account for. Sean, I think we should be careful before we begin painting the Founding Fathers as modern Evangelicals. Did they believe in God? Of course they did, so do Diests, so do demons according to James--Oh, but that book wouldn't have been in Jefferson's Bible now would it?
One final thought, your sources? "The Conservative Voice"? That's what I mean when I talk about "objectivity". Most of the quotes Williams uses are of public pronouncments--Bill Clinton made as many claims to faith in Christ as any of these men. Better to examine their personal letters as Gene Garmen has done.
I was re-reading the original post made: "The sole purpose of this topic is to debunk the myth that our founding fathers were not Christians and wanted our government to have nothing to do with religion."
I just want to note that I do not dispute this at all--only Williams assertion that many of our founders were "Christians not deists"; moreover, I could care less what a man believes--show how they live. Some of our fathers fail this test.
Oh, but I don't believe they were all Christians, anymore than I believe that Clinton or George W. Bush are.
Of course, I suppose if someone wanted to paste together random quotes from news conferences 200 years from now they could argue that they were indeed very moral, God-fearing men who passionately followed Christ. Whatever.
Anonymous-q,
Concerning your comments about Jefferson and Franklin, you yourself were merely quoting what someone else said as well. You did a Google search and found articles like what can be found here or here. But in the end you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing. You are quoting someone else who has done the research.
Besides, why does it call into question my objectivity if I quote from "The Conservative Voice"? You excel in your accusations, but have failed to demonstrate your own objectivity.
The article in the Conservative Voice is not some poorly researched rhetoric done by blindly biased individuals. It was not based on "public pronouncements" or "random quotes," but off the work of another individual whose life's work is to study the founding fathers and their writings -- David Burton. Have you yourself read all the letters that you listed? Or did you just quote someone who has? We already know you simply copied and pasted those things in there, but have you done your research into the original writings? After all, you said, "Better to examine their personal letters as Gene Garmen has done." But Burton has too. How is it then that your source is "objective" and "historically accurate" and mine is not?
As for your two illustrations -- Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin -- you have used 2 men out of over 200 founders. While there may be evidence that they had "moral failings," there is not sufficient evidence that they considered themselves "deist." Nor does this limited sample offer anybody sufficient grounds to generalize the rest. History is replete with examples of how the vast majority of these men not only claimed to be Christians but lived lives that affirm this declaration. No one said that they were "all" Christians. I agree that not all of them were, take Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen for example.
As for Jefferson's "mutilated Bible," are you aware of what Jefferson was actually doing? Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"). What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. As I quoted in my original post, he went on as President of the United States and "signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, 'I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.'" While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.
I guess that I'm left wondering what your purpose is in commenting as you have. You said that you "do not dispute this at all--only Williams assertion that many of our founders were 'Christians not deists.'" Are you then saying that many of the founders were deists? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist" appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. But do the Founders fit any of these definitions? Maybe this could be said of a few. But I believe that the majority of them were Christians, contrary to the popular trend to suggest otherwise.
I guess this issue would be easier to discuss if you did not continue your pattern of calling into question my "objectivity." Anyone who has read your posts over the last week can easily observe that you yourself possess an agenda. You have certain biases that determine your position on these issue just as anyone else does. You have suggested (more than once)that I (as well as those like me) am blindly loyal, naïve, and unobjective. This makes sincere dialogue truly toilsome.
And one more thing, I wasn't trying to "[paint] the Founding Fathers as modern Evangelicals." That is a mischaracterization.
In conclusion:
1. I believe that the vast majority of our founding fathers were Christians, not deists.
2. I think that the modern trend to suggest otherwise is a further attempt to remove any traces of God from our nation's history, and consequently it's present.
3. I believe that according to your standards, you are equally as unobjective as I am. That, of course, is according to your standards...
Ouch...I'm bleeding! I feel like I've angered you...maybe not for the first time.
To begin with, let me state clearly that I was not critizing you for your own research in quoting from Williams--I was only pointing to the obvious bias of "The Conservative Voice". Nor was I suggesting that you retrieve all of the founders personal writings, study them for the next several months (or years) and then continue our dialogue. And I am certainly not claiming to be an expert on American History or the founding fathers. Only pointing out that this is not a cut and dried debate. It's quite open to opinion and interpretation!
Secondly, I am not the one who pointed to Jefferson and Henry--Williams did. Nor was I by any means referring to ALL the founding fathers, which you will note if you carefully read my posting.
I had never heard Jefferson's purpose in editing the New Testament--I do not doubt the truth of your statement. I stand corrected and informed.
My research? Yes, I did a quick search, I copied and pasted from two artiles I read out of several that I found. I am by no means denying that...isn't that the wonder and beauty of the internet? Sorry if that's inadequate for posting--I was not masquerading as an expert--only pointing to other sources besides those you named. Neither do I criticize you for using the same method.
I do confess my own hypocrisy in citing Michael Miller's piece--he has as much an bias as anyone I've read.
Finally, I do not believe you are "blindly loyal, naive, and unobjective" though I admit that is my view of "most Evangelicals" and the same could be said of "most liberals". I'm looking for the "middle way" myself. I try to glean from both sides of the fence and let my allegiance to Christ (not my family, my country or my traditions--though there is good in all of them) guide me.
On a personal note:
You're wrong about me, Sean. I have no "agenda" just a different perspective and opinion--but there's obviously no room for that at this blogsite. I am less liberal than you think, more conservative than you believe. I am only left to conclude that you are not looking for "dialogue" but "agreement" which is about all you've got on this website so far. While others have made me feel welcome on this blog--you have not.
My best wishes to you--see you in MS, where I'll do my best to befriend you and make you feel welcome...by the way, you're coming to a great seminary and I look forward to you joining us there.
PS--No hard feelings, but Jefferson was a deist!
Ok.
All points well made.
I suppose you are correct that there has been very little disagreement on this blog. And I suppose that I don't have quite the knack for finding the middle road as some may wish. I am very opinionated and strong-willed. I'm also a work in progress.
I have never meant to come across an un-welcoming. I thought I was trying my hardest to respond to your critical comments without sounding offensive or rude. You are more than welcome here, and I have been pondering all this afternoon about the value of your presence on this site. I must say that I have been a little put off ever since your first comment/s because it felt as though you were making unfair assumptions about me and/or the people like me, or were approaching these discussions with an accusatory attitude. If I was wrong I sincerely apologize. I guess I need to consider that maybe my words aren't as considerate as I thought.
I hope none of this will dissuade you from continuing on this site. We need to hear from other perspectives, and I truly believe that "iron sharpens iron."
P.S. Be careful about how much you reveal about yourself on this site if you want to remain anonymous. Your anonymity may have already been somewhat compromised.... :)
You're right...I've been abrasive and had an accusatory tone. I've really only been playing the devil's advocate on a lot of these issues in an effort to stir discussion and debate--but it is not my place to do that. I'm probably not thick-skinned enough to really begin a debate with you or anyone else.
Thank you for, Sean, for your Christ-like humilty and your respectful reply. You've got a great thing going here and I don't want to interfere with it anymore. I'll keep posting but as myself and not some made up identity. My postings will be more agreeable and far more conservative, but more authentic as well. Thanks for allowing me to contribute as an "liberal Christian"...did I pass as one?
--Anonymous Q
Anonymous-q ("Q" as in "?"),
If your efforts were intended to stir up debate then you obviously succeeded. However, I don't think that offering an opposing opinion is something to avoid on here. Like you and I have said, there has been very little serious disagreement on this blog. Opposing opinions always spur debate and dialogue, hence the purpose of this blog. I do not underestimate the value of opposing opinions, although I may not know the best way to respond to them.
I would say that you are better at playing the role of an antagonist than you are at playing the role of a liberal. Your obvious interest in the central role of Scripture, the personal transformation of Christian experience, and their consequential impact on society does not ring true with the ideologies of modern liberals (at least at my estimation). But you role-play quite well, and the devil can be thankful that he has "advocates" like you...
Please continue on this blog. My blog is your blog - kind of.... ok, not really. You get the point.
P.S. How's the weather in Northeast Ohio?
Sorry I've been away the past few days, hope I was missed (grin). Sean, just wanted you to know that the weather's fine. Why do you want to take all my fun away exploring my identity and all?
Anonymous-q,
For whatever reason, it has been more fun (and every bit as much of a challenge) trying to figure out your identity than it has been dialoguing with you. But don't worry, your secret's mostly safe with me... *fiendish laughter*
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog