tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post115137322227478326..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-50499983056966128222009-12-14T03:18:37.306-05:002009-12-14T03:18:37.306-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-13795023510004501802008-02-01T02:55:00.000-05:002008-02-01T02:55:00.000-05:00As typically happens with those who throw quotes a...As typically happens with those who throw quotes around, Rich Knapp fails to disclose (or didn't look up) the entire quotation from TJ's letter to Mr. Wendover. The sentence actually begins "I feel my portion of indebtment to the reverend author, for the distinguished learning, the logic and the eloquence with which <B>he</B> has proved (emphasis mine) that religion, as well as reason..." It's not TJ's belief, but rather a platitude given to a preacher who holds the "religion" point of view as opposed to Jefferson's "reason" point of view. This can be clearly seen as the letter continues:<BR/>"These are my views on this question. <B>They are in opposition to those of the highly respected and able preacher</B> (emphasis mine), and are, therefore, the more doubtingly offered." Jefferson is merely affecting some humility here.<BR/><BR/>This seems to happen a lot with Jefferson, most notably those who like to quote TJ as saying "I am a Christian, in the truest sense of the word," and then conveniently fail to continue the quote where he clarifies that he means the philosophy of Jesus the man, not the divinity of Jesus the god.<BR/><BR/>And I'm sure (in regards to the second quote) that I don't have to point out that acknowledging accord does not mean acceptance or endorsement, any more than an athiest, who acknowledges his agreemnent with a few moral principles found in a number of cultures/religions (say, "don't murder," or "don't steal") acknowledges the truth or legitimacy of those religions, or endorses their dissemination.<BR/><BR/>Besides, while TJ does criticize the clergy, he is also (again) stressing a belief in a philisophical Jesus, rather than a divine one, hence the "original purity, and simplicity of its benevolent institutor."<BR/><BR/>I would also take issue with the suggestion that TJ has to be speaking of the Christian religion. Time and time again he endorses the notion of many religions, as he feels difference of opinion is what leads to truth. Note this quote:<BR/><BR/>"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth"<BR/><BR/>Still think he would agree that the country was founded on Christian priciples? Well, he might, but he would be defining Christianity in an extremely limited sense and not in any way that we think of it today. And he certainly did not think of Jesus as divine, and therefore can not be considered a biblical unitarian. If you want to associate him with any unitarian sect, he's much more like the unitarian universalists, although even that's a bit of a stretch, as their beliefs are so varied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1157321084028117022006-09-03T18:04:00.000-04:002006-09-03T18:04:00.000-04:00Reader Rich Knapp passes this comment along (he tr...Reader Rich Knapp passes this comment along (he tried to post it but ran into technical difficulties w/ blogger):<BR/><BR/><I>First let me congratulate Dr. Greg Frazer for successfully completing his graduate program. My comments are in response to the comments on Jon’s site. I say this as I have not read Greg’s paper and therefore it would not be appropriate to try to critique it. My comments are in reaction to some of the ideas contained in Jon’s page and should not be taken personally.<BR/> <BR/>I have a few thoughts. To begin with, I find the term ‘orthodox Christian’ to be a straw dog. The Congregationists and the Presbyterians were at odds with the Episcopalians. All three mistrusted the Catholics. And, nobody liked the Anabaptists. While they all believed in the Trintiy, they had little else in common. They believed in different sacraments, in what a sacrament was, in the proper mode of baptism, what constituted authority, in forms of church governance, in the hierarchy of church structure. The Trinity is about the only thing they had in common. There was one other doctrine which united them. That was the mission of Christ. This would be a better touchstone for orthodoxy than the trinity. After all, they all recognized themselves as Christians not Trinitarians.<BR/> <BR/>Let’s take a look at Unitarianism. The latest attack on the doctrine of the Trinity began prior to the Protestant revolt. In the 15th century. Lorenzo Valla had put forth the charge that the Nicene Creed was a forgery. Erasmus also cast doubts on the doctrine of the Trinity. As the Protestant revolt go underway, several creeds took Valla’s and Erasmas’ thoughts on the Trinity and adopted them into their doctrinal beliefs. While different in other aspects of church doctrine, because of their anti-Trinitarianism they all became known under the general title Unitarians.<BR/> <BR/>There seems to be a number of Unitarians. There are Biblical Unitarians, Rational Unitarians, Unitarian Universalism, and Evangelical Unitarianism. It is Biblical Unitarians that we should begin with. These Unitarians view God as a single entity, The Father. Jesus is the Messiah and the son of God but not God himself. Man can only be saved through Jesus Christ. This was the Unitarian views of the followers of Socinus. Their members grew primarily in Poland. That is until the Church drove them out. Some went to Transylvania and some to England. It was from England that Socinianism was introduced to the new states in America around 1790. This doctrine found a home among Congregationist congregations.<BR/> <BR/>In the middle of the 17th-century, a huge religious revival called the Great Awakening broke out in the colonies. As a backlash to this great emotional tumult, groups of Congregationalists began to take a more rational approach to studying the bible. One results was to downplay the Trinity. Thus Socinianism (Biblical Unitarianism) found a home among the Congregationists. Certain Congregational churches in a given city were given over for the preaching by Biblical Unitarian ministers. Thus Congregational communities were split into conservative Congregationalist and liberal Congregationalist. Biblical Unitarians didn’t split off from the Congregational Church until 1819. What led to the split was Rev. Channing’s sermon “Unitarian Christianity.” The new church was called The American Unitarian Association. While it continued to become more rational, in a conference in 1865 they adopted a distinctly Christian platform, affirming that its members were "disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ". In 1961 the American Unitarian Association united with the Universalist Church of America to become Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. It is this organization which ceased to consider themselves solely Christian. However, Biblical Unitarians continue to exist even today and consider themselves Christians: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/<BR/> <BR/>The purpose of this is to show that while a number of our founding fathers adhered to Unitarianism, the belief in this doctrine did not stop them from being Christians. It makes more sense to define those who are Christian in terms of whether or not they accept Jesus Christ as the messiah. Biblical Unitarians certainly did. It is logical therefore to consider Biblical Unitarians Christians. Therefore, any attempt to classify any of our founding fathers as non-Christian on the basis of their association with the Unitarians is simply historically inaccurate.<BR/> <BR/>I certainly cannot cover all the founding fathers and their religious beliefs and wouldn’t if I could. However, a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson are interesting.<BR/> <BR/>"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283<BR/> <BR/>This describes quite well the position of Biblical Unitarianism. And it is a reaction to the great turmoil of the religious revivalists. This was the reaction of many Presbyterian and Congregationalists as a result of the emotional fervor revivalism. The comments also states that the principles upon which the government was founded are in agreement with both religious principles and principles of reason.<BR/> <BR/>Now I submit to you that the religion he is talking about is the Christian religion. There were a few deists and Jews but overwhelmingly America was composed of Christians (that would include Biblical Unitarians). It would only be reasonable to think that the religious principles Jefferson knew were Christian principles. This would accord with the second statement I present. <BR/> <BR/>"The Christian religion, …, , and brought to the original purity, and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237 <BR/> <BR/>Here he comes right out and state that the principles of Christian religion are in accord with the principles upon which this country was founded. If you notice I took out a portion of the quote. I did this so that his meaning might be perfectly clear. Here is what I took out. “when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it.” His problem was never with Christianity but rather with the clergy. Again and again he speaks out against the clergy. He had no problems with Christian principles. I think if we could ask him if the country was founded upon Christian principles he would say of course, Christian principles and the principles of reason.<BR/> <BR/>You see, with reason and religion you get Washington and stable government. With reason contra religion you get Robespierre and the Reign of Terror.</I>Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1151631468276004172006-06-29T21:37:00.000-04:002006-06-29T21:37:00.000-04:00Based on what I'm reading so far, it's really good...Based on what I'm reading so far, it's really good stuff.<BR/><BR/>He's the one guy who really gets to the heart of the matter regarding what the key Founders really believed.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1151626909482131522006-06-29T20:21:00.000-04:002006-06-29T20:21:00.000-04:00Jonathan,I too am ordering Dr. Frazer's thesis. I...Jonathan,<BR/><BR/>I too am ordering Dr. Frazer's thesis. I am curious to read more about what you think of it. I studied under Frazer in college and am curious to see what he says in his thesis.PubliusPosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01177828754535831422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1151609999818766692006-06-29T15:39:00.000-04:002006-06-29T15:39:00.000-04:00I think it's catching its breath in the US. But I...I think it's catching its breath in the US. But I don't want to come off as demagogic---I'm also contemplating Western Europe, which I see as a sort of crystal ball into our future. It's becoming a continental Oakland---there's no there there.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1151537347646803952006-06-28T19:29:00.000-04:002006-06-28T19:29:00.000-04:00I don't have a problem with much of what you write...I don't have a problem with much of what you write. Although, I know a lot of gays who do want and would benefit by gay marriage.<BR/><BR/>Where I do most vehemently disagree is where you state "society" is on its last legs. Looking at the social indicators, I just don't see the evidence for this.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1151472325512457352006-06-28T01:25:00.000-04:002006-06-28T01:25:00.000-04:00The Founders' hostility to and restrictions on law...The Founders' hostility to and restrictions on law and government assumes a society that orders itself.<BR/><BR/>The post-revolution, pre-Constitution United States was working OK, in an informal sort of way. Most folks were on the same page. Even after the ratification of the Constitution and his 8-year presidency, Washington said in 1796:<BR/><BR/><I>With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes...</I><BR/><BR/>That was not so much a "religion" or even a state as much as a society.<BR/><BR/>When law subsumes "society" then all we have is law, which as you know as a Juris Doctor (that means Jon is a lawyer) is always insufficient, as it's only an approximation of reality.<BR/><BR/>To see life only in legal terms is to miss the whole thing. It's just a prism, and a flawed one: <BR/><BR/>Law cannot say what is good, only proscribe against what seems to be bad.<BR/><BR/>This is my problem with "positive liberty." The Founders had so many assumptions that their society was built on over 1000s of years that they scarcely knew how it got there. <BR/><BR/>They called it "Providence," for lack of a better term.<BR/><BR/>We mess with it all at our own peril. <BR/><BR/>Me, I don't think anyone wants gay marriage, including most gays. It's a torch that's lit, perhaps in the name of equality or freedom or whatever, but likely more in the name of co-opting the legal system to force societal acceptance.<BR/><BR/>But we have no idea what it'll burn. Let the breeders breed, as they inevitably will. Perhaps they'll start keeping their young hoodlums and hoodlumesses off the street, in the home, in the name of marriage, family, religion, or whatever it takes.<BR/><BR/>That's what "society" really needs. It's on its last legs, man, if you haven't noticed. Gay folk will be OK---they've been getting by without marriage for thousands of years now. The breeders, not so well, lately.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com