Blasphemy Laws and the Founding:

Some folks are surprised to learn that blasphemy laws and some prosecutions under them persisted after the ratification of the Bill of Rights. I don't interpret that to mean blasphemy laws are consistent with Free Speech; clearly they are not. Rather, their persistence was more a function of the original federalist understanding of the First Amendment where none of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment's religion clauses, applied against state and local governments.

Walter Berns, a brilliant scholar with whom I often disagree (for instance, he has notably called for reinstituting censorship and believes Free Speech forbids prior restraints only, not after the fact prosecutions), explained the secular rational for blasphemy laws. He discussed a founding era blasphemy case, which as I will show, I think, he either partially misunderstood or "found" a controversial "Straussian" meaning; but he nonetheless accurately explained how blasphemy laws might properly exist in a nation like the United States which was founded to be a secular commercial republic. As he writes in Making Patriots:

Liberty of conscience was widely accepted at the time of the Founding, but this did not prevent some jurists and legislatures from insisting, at least for a while (and given our principles it could be only for a while), that Christianity was part of the law, meaning the common law. So it had been in England, and so, it was assumed by some (but not Jefferson), it would continue to be in America. But there was no disagreement about the place of the common law. Indeed one of the first things done by the states after independence was to declare (here in the words of the New Jersey constitution of 1776) that “the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter [or constitution].”

But if the “rights and privileges” contained in the various state charters or constitutions included the right of liberty of conscience, and if, in turn, this right required, in Madison’s words, “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” what did it mean to say that Christianity was part of the common law? Very little, as it turned out; and it turned out as it had to turn out. Consider, for example, the case of blasphemy in America…. pp. 32-33.

Berns then notes how blasphemy laws remained on the books, but in post-Founding America, the judges, in maintaining their consistency with the rights of conscience, had to “redefine the offense” to include utterances against any religion that would tend to cause a breach of the peace. In other words, the policy behind the offense was now to protect the peace, not the Christian or any religion. These state courts had effectively “stripped blasphemy of its religious character.” Leading Berns to ask, rhetorically, “who can quarrel over a blasphemy law that protects one and all [religions] alike”?

Under the old understanding of blasphemy laws, the purpose was to protect the Christian religion from harm. As such, a Christian commonwealth would be charged with protecting the Christian religion only. Under the principles of modern republicanism, on the other hand, blasphemy laws protect breaches of the peace and as such, the law has a duty to protect whatever is the dominant religion of the people.

[My understanding is that founding era republicanism views Free Speech as a natural right, and therefore, government has no right to proscribe any kind of "blasphemy"; elsewhere Berns has argued that because citizens surrender their natural rights when leaving the state of nature, they surrender their right to speak freely, in exchange for living in an orderly society; however, many scholars differ with Berns on whether founding theory teaches that man surrenders his natural rights when leaving the state of nature. And that's probably because the Founders themselves and philosophers they followed differed on what exactly is surrendered, what is retained.]

However, when I go back and look at the original case, People v. Ruggles, Berns' reports doesn't seem quite right. Rather, Judge Kent himself seems to invoke both rationales, protecting the Christian religion from harm and protecting from breaches of the peace, in upholding the blasphemy convictions. It's interesting to see Judge Kent struggle with the seeming conflict between blasphemy laws and liberty of conscience.

It will be fully satisfied by a free and universal toleration, without any of the tests, disabilities, or discriminations, incident to a religious establishment. To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. The proviso guards the article from such dangerous latitude of construction, when it declares, the "the liberty of conscience hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of this state."

What he quotes from NY's Constitution justifies the secular rationale for blasphemy laws, but not protecting the Christian religion from harm. However, Kent makes it clear that he believed (and that's all it is, one judge's opinion) under New York law, Christianity receives special protection from harm:

Nor are we bound, by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.

Two interesting things to note. First, Kent's opinion on how to reconcile liberty of conscience with blasphemy laws that protect Christianity was not uncontroversial. At the New State Convention in 1821 Erastus Root attempted to amend the Constitution to overturn the Ruggles opinion, arguing that it violated the letter and spirit of New York's Constitution. His amendment failed though.

More importantly, I'm sure many lesser known Founding Fathers believed as Judge Kent did -- that the law should protect the Christian religion and not that of "imposter" religions. It has not been determined what the two hundred and some odd men who, as a group, comprised the "Founders" believed in this and many disputed areas, which is one reason why they probably settled on broad language limiting what the federal government could do, and left most matters up to the states.

But I do know, in studying what the key Founders -- the men whose faces grace US currency -- believed and it is nothing like Kent's opinion. They believed "religion" meant all religions and as such the law would equally protect Islam and Hinduism with Christianity. Madison and Jefferson believed it violated natural right for tax dollars to support the Christian religion (or any religion). Washington differed. Yet, because Judaism and Islam -- two religions he mentioned by named -- had equal rights with Christianity, such believers, Washington noted were by right entitled to exemptions or accommodations from laws which would take their tax dollars to support Christianity. As he wrote:

I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denomination of Christians; or declare themselves Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief. As the matter now stands, I wish an assessment had never been agitated, and as it has gone so far, that the Bill could die an easy death; because I think it will be productive of more quiet to the State, than by enacting it into a Law; which, in my opinion, would be impolitic, admitting there is a decided majority for it, to the disquiet of a respectable minority. [My emphasis.]

As I've written elsewhere, these Founders seemed to go even further than merely believing all religions should be equally protected by the law, but that they all lead to the same God. They made clear that the organic, or "higher law" that founds America -- the spirit of founding era republicanism -- is not Christianity, but rather reason, or some kind of natural theism ("the laws of Nature and Nature's God") which endows all religions with equal rights. Thus, if Christianity is protected under blasphemy laws, the spirit of republicanism demands all religions, or whatever religion the people may be, likewise be protected, for the sole rationale of protecting the public order from breaches of the peace, not protecting any particular religion from harm. Arguably, the spirit of republicanism holds all blasphemy laws to violate the natural right to free speech.

Ain't Nothin' Better:

Than puppets making prank phone calls:

How Mormons View America's Founding:

There is an interesting conversation occurring here on this thread. Someone makes an interesting point: since Mormons view America's founding as divinely inspired, Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, may do a better job defending the US Constitution since he'll view it as a divinely inspired document.

I think the key Founders -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al. -- did believe God intervened on their behalf in the Revolution and subsequently in constructing the Constitution (though the Declaration is far more theistic than the Constitution).

However, the ideas contained in the Founding documents -- the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers -- are hardly biblical. Indeed, some notable scholars have made the case that some key Founding ideas actually conflict with the Bible; for instance, Romans 13 seems to categorically forbid revolt, arguably making America's war for independence a sin according to the Bible.

George Washington believed God was pro-political liberty. That's well and good; the problem is, the Bible doesn't teach this. The Bible never mentions political liberty; every time it uses the word "liberty," it refers to spiritual not political liberty.

The Mormon religion, and the book of Mormon, on the other hand, do indeed make Founding-era republican ideals part and parcel of their religion. But that's not because there is anything magically or divinely true about the Mormon religion; rather, because when Joseph Smith et al. created the religion, they incorporated some of the Founders' republican ideals, enlightenment teachings, and eccentric theological beliefs into their religion. For instance, Ben Franklin flirted with the proto-Mormon belief that some larger God created the cosmos, and each solar system had its own lesser God -- a more "knowable" God -- which he would worship.

I don't think that Mormonism is entirely consistent with the theology of the key Founders (for instance, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin thought the Bible to be only partially inspired and that man's reason supersedes biblical revelation as the final arbiter of truth -- do Mormon's believe this?); but Mormon theology is closer to what the Founders believed than is orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.

The Book of Mormon is, by its very nature, extra-biblical, and that's where Founding era republican ideals are officially incorporated into Mormon theology. What Mormons officially did parallels what some Christians and Unitarians who called themselves Christians did during the Founding era: They incorporated extra-biblical republican principles into their "Christian" theology to make God over in a way more in accord with liberal democratic ideals. Whenever you see buzzwords like "state of nature" in Founding era sermons, or if any of those sermons argued God was on the side of the Americans in the Revolutionary war, God grants unalienable natural rights, God is pro-political liberty, you can be sure this is what was going on.

Hagiography in Action, Part II:

Commenter AMW thought my response to a hagiographic reading of George Washington's religion was weak. I tried to make the post brief. The conversation which gave rise to my post ensued where I detailed more why Washington's creed probably doesn't quite comport with orthodox Christianity. Here is the latest reply followed up by my response:

Jon,

Thank you for the links. As to the spurious nature of Washington's prayer that I cited in #87, I am befuddled. I did not get that from any internet source, but copied it word for word from a document that I got many years ago at Mt. Vernon. If any place could be trusted for authenticity regarding Washington, that was it, I thought.

I went to your link and then to the University of Virginia Press digitized collection of Washington's papers. I must concede that the phrase "…through Jesus Christ our Lord" appears to have been added at some later time, for I could not find it in any of the more authentic sources. My turn to eat humble pie. You are correct on this point and I should have been less caustic in my related remarks — my apologies.

As I searched through Washington's papers, I was disappointed in the scarcity of specific references to Christ. I can see how many scholars thus characterize him as a deist. Yet, it is notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative through lack of evidence. In my opinion, for them to be convincing with the claim that Washington was not a Christian, they would have to find statements from Washington where he denounced or specifically disclaimed Christianity. Apparently those cannot be found, anymore than specific statements of allegiance to Christ.

On the other hand, we find large amounts of circumstantial evidence of his allegiance to Christianity — evidence that would also be consistent with the reluctance of some people to publicly discuss their private religious sentiments, especially when in a position of public office.

He attended a Christian church even though he disagreed with the pastor on certain aspects of communion. If he had been a deist I should think he would have attended some kind of universalist church, or no church at all.

If he had been a deist he would not have fought so hard for a Christian chaplaincy for the military, specifically referring to the need for Christian soldiers to attend religious services.

In a letter to the German Reformed Church in Jun of 1789, he appealed to the Throne of Grace, a distinctly Christian, Christ oriented term.

In a letter to Savannah Hebrews in May of 1790 he spoke in admiration of Jehovah God. Even though the Jews disagree about Jesus Christ, our Jehovah God is one and the same.

In a letter from Countess Huntingdon to Washington in Mar of 1784, she called him a Christian and a soldier.

In a letter to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1789, Washington speaks of a "true Christian" from the perspective of being one himself.

In the inventory of Washington's library at Mt. Vernon we find many volumes of sermon collections and commentaries from prominent Christian pastors of his day: Blair, South, the Bishop of Bath, Yorrick, Sherlock, Brady, and Foster. By seeing this collection of the works of Christians he obviously admired, I am convinced he was of like mind.

On top of this, Washington makes many more general references to Almighty God, Providence, Author of our blessed Religion, etc., all of which can be considered supportive of and complimentary to Christianity.

Absent specific Christ oriented mini-sermons from Washington's own lips, all of this is very strong circumstantial evidence of his allegiance to Jesus Christ. It is considerably stronger on the positive side than the non-evidence advanced by the deist camp.

My reply:

Michael,

Thank you for your reply. I'll repeat, I don't argue GW was a "Deist." My research has found that not just Washington, but other "key" Founding Fathers (the men who grace US currency) including Jefferson, seem to fit neatly into neither box: strict Deism or orthodox Christianity.

I'm working on a publication on Washington where I deal with a few of the points you cite. They want the bio to be factual, not argumentative in nature, so here is how I conclude on GW's faith:

A man of mystery, Washington refused to put his explicit religious cards on the table leaving generations to come wondering exactly what it was he believed beyond the "few and simple" tenets he identified in his speeches and writings.

GW once stated: "In religion my tenets are few and simple."

On the letter to the Hebrews, he used the term "Jehovah" for God only once, when speaking to Jews. Twice when speaking to unconverted Native Americans, he referred to God as "The Great Spirit," exactly as they did. Putting these together suggests not exclusive belief in the God of Scripture, but a syncretic universalism which views many world religions as valid ways to God.

(It's telling that he used "Jehovah" when talking to Jews, "The Great Spirit" when talking to Indians, but didn't use either of those terms when talking to non-Jews or Indians; a pattern of GW using the addressee's terms for God.)

Regarding his letter to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1789, I've carefully examined it -- and this also relates to his support of the chaplaincy, and promoting "morality" through the auspices of Christianity to his soldiers -- Washington, like Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin probably believed the key factor of religion was to make men moral, not to save men's souls through the blood Atonement of Christ. Or to put it another way, men would be saved through works and not grace. If you look at Washington's praise for the Christian religion -- and you are right, he does this in a way that a strict deist would not -- it almost invariably is done in the context of equating Christianity with character or virtue. This is exactly what Adams, Franklin, Madison and Jefferson believed. And, as Franklin once put it (see the quotation below), if the "ends" (virtue) are achieved the "means" (which religion you are) really don't matter, you could see how they might draw an equivalence between Christianity and other world religions, as long as they promoted the morality necessary to support our republic. I did a big post on this months ago with quotations from the key Founders where I showed Washington's opinion about Christianity in this regard exactly paralleled Jefferson's, Adams', and Franklin's.

As Washington put it in that very letter to which you refer:

"[F]or no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society."

Notice the words, "a credit to his own religious society...," which implies as long as your religion promotes the necessary virtue, whether it is Christian or not, it is "sound" or "valid." Washington clearly had no problem with the orthodox evangelical sects of his day and thought they did great work for society in promoting morality; but he didn't seem to have problems with non-Christian religions either, as long as their religions likewise promoted morality.

Here are some quotations from other key Founding Fathers which shed light on this belief which does not neatly comport with orthodox Christian notions of salvation (the supposed "Deist" Ben Franklin actually refers to Jesus as "Savior" something Washington never did; yet, as is shown, Franklin believed men were saved through works, not grace):

"My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin's, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power."

-- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.

"No point of Faith is so plain, as that Morality is our Duty; for all Sides agree in that. A virtuous Heretick shall be saved before a wicked Christian."

-- Benjamin Franklin, "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," April 10, 1735.

"Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one....Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means."

-- Ibid.

"...the design of Christianity was not to make men good Riddle Solvers or good mystery mongers, but good men, good magestrates and good Subjects...."

-- John Adams, Dairy, Feb. 18, 1756

Why the "Christian America" Thesis Hurts Religious Conservatives:

Ed Brayton points to this article by Al Bedrosian, former political candidate for the Virginia General Assembly arguing against the notion of religious freedom.

If devout Christians honestly want to argue against religious freedom for non-Christian faiths, that's fine; but religious conservatives make fools of themselves when they try to drag the Founding Fathers as on their side. If they understood history better, they wouldn't do this. But they've been misled by the likes of David Barton, D. James Kennedy, and William Federer into believing the Christian Nation nonsense, where a central part of the myth is the Founders intended the religious rights to protect Christian sects only. As he writes:

When reading the writings of our Founding Founders, there was never any reference to freedom of religion referring to a choice between Islam, Hindu, Satanism, Wicca and whatever other religions or cults you would like to dream up. It was very clear that freedom to worship meant the freedom to worship the God of the Bible in the way you wanted, and not to have a government church denomination dictate how you would worship.

Ed Brayton points to the irony that this man is from Virginia and ran for Virginia General Assembly. That state, in 1786, passed Jefferson's landmark statute establishing religious liberty, a statute which claims to be based on "natural right," which is shorthand for "the laws of nature and nature's God." And Jefferson, in no uncertain terms, told which "religions" were protected under the statute:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

Further not only did the key Founders -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin -- believe all religions were protected under the "unalienable rights of conscience," they also believed practically all of these religions were valid ways to God. As John Adams put it discussing how Hindus worship the same God Christians and Jews do:

Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs. --- Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.”

-- John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.

As I've shown in the past, Ben Franklin thought it appropriate for Muslims to preach Mohammedanism in Christian Churches. And Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, when they spoke to unconverted Native Americans used the term "The Great Spirit" for God, suggesting the Indians' Pagan God was the same one they worshipped.

The notion that all religions worship the same God and that all religions ought be endowed with equal rights sort of connects their theology with their politics; if all religions lead to the same God, it makes sense that all religions should have equal rights.

Indeed, as Mr. Bedrosian informs:

Christianity, by its own definition, does not allow freedom of religion. A Christian is defined as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Jesus clearly states all through Scripture that he is the way and the only way to God the father. The Bible is clear in teaching us that we should have no other gods before him. Our God is a jealous God.

I've read the Bible carefully and I'd say Mr. Bedrosian's interpretation is fair and reasonable. The problem, for him, is that it's not what our Founders believed. Their nature's God granted men the unalienable right to freedom of religion, not just to worship the God of the Bible, but to worship false gods or even no God at all. Indeed Mr. Bedrosian's view illustrates how Christians viewed the proper relationship between government and religion before America's Founders changed things.

How Christians like Bedrosian might want to reconcile the Founders' view of a nature's God who grants men the right to worship false gods with traditional Christianity is their dilemma. Students of political philosophy know this as "the theological-political problem." And, I think that the Bible can be reconciled with the notion of freedom of religion for all. Certainly nothing in the New Testament requires (or forbids, I might add) Christians to persecute non-believers if they should be in charge of government.

This information also helps demonstrates the extra-biblical character of "the laws of nature and nature's God." Whether Christians can permit non-believers to worship as they please, nothing in the Bible requires them to do so. The notion of a nature's God who grants men the unalienable right to break His First Command seems, to me, entirely extra-biblical, more characteristic of a benevolent, non-jealous, unitarian Deity, not the God of Scripture.

Finally, religious conservatives have legitimate arguments to make in terms of how to properly interpret religion clauses of the Constitution. I'd suggest the works of Daniel Dreisbach, Philip Hamburger, and Phillip Muñoz, or even some of Justice Thomas' thoughtful Church-State opinions.

Commentaries, like Mr. Bedrosian's, which rely on an abominable understanding of the history and political philosophy of America's Founding certainly do nothing to advance religious conservatism. I wonder what are the politics of the The Roanoke Times. Could it be that they featured this op-ed to make religious conservatives look bad?

Does this Make Me Cool By Association?

I had no clue. Since Jerry Garcia died, Phish have been the cool "head" band by default. After graduating high school, I attended Mercer County Community College for a year, headed off to Berklee College of Music (btw, one of our notable professors, jazz great Herb Pomery recently passed), and three graduate degrees from Temple University later, now teach full time at Mercer.

I didn't know that Trey Anastasio guitarist for Phish is an alum of Mercer County Community College. At least one or more Phish members (I need to brush up) are Berklee alums as well.

Every time a student of mine wears a Phish shirt, I'm going to have to inform him/her that Trey is an alum.

Hagiography in Action:

In long debating George Washington's religion and arguing he wasn't a Christian in the orthodox Trinitarian sense, I've noticed a sort of strange anger from the "Christian Heritage" crowd when you try to show them Washington wasn't a "real Christian" like them. Such anger permeates Peter Lillback's book (but not Michael and Jana Novak's). Here is one such example from WorldMagBlog's thread (a place I go, with many thoughtful and some not so thoughtful evangelicals, to test some of my arguments). The commenter informs me:

You present his pastor as the defining arbiter of Washington's Christianity. Why do you prefer the pastor's opinion to Washington's? It is because it is convenient to your argument and to your bias, not necessarily because it is true. I disagree with my pastor on aspects of our congregational communion practice. But that does not make me a generic deist. You must look at the whole man, the totality of his witness over the years, not isolated quotes or incidents that are convenient to your biased view.

George Washington, April 30th, 1789

Almighty GOD; we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection, that thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States of America at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of The Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech thee, through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen

Beyond quotes come many significant deeds over the years such as Washington's establishment of the military chaplaincy — in his day, a Christian chaplaincy.

During the French and Indian war, Washington for two years repeatedly tried to persuade Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia to authorize a chaplain for his command, which was then guarding the Virginia frontier. He wrote:

The want of a chaplain does, I humbly conceive, reflect dishonor upon the regiment, as all other officers are allowed. The gentlemen of the corps are sensible to this, and did propose to support one at their private expense. But I think it would have a more graceful appearance were he appointed as others are.

This would have been a Christian chaplaincy, since those who did serve in other units were mostly Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians.

Finally, when Washington took command of the Continental Army he issued this order, thus establishing the United States Army chaplaincy:

New York, July 9th, l776

The Honorable Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-Three Dollars and one third dollars pr month - The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives - To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger -The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.

Jon Rowe, this was not the act of some generic deist as you contend. It was the act of a faithful and committed Christian. Washington's entire career gives evidence of that. It is a dishonor to his memory to twist his life and witness to conform to your bias.

You further contend that he "rejected nearly all of the tenets of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. You provide no evidence to support that statement. I do not believe you. Considering the biased weakness of your general argument, you are going to have to provide more that just an unsupported statement before this additional claim can receive any credibility.

Here is my response:

Michael,

In [post number] 87, the prayer you reproduce is spurious (do you want me to reproduce the original of the Circular to the States, from which it is based?). That he did so little talking about Jesus is one reason why most scholars don't think Washington was Christian.

Washington, in his talks of chaplaincy, made it clear that he wanted them to be of the religion of the soldiers, most of whom were Christians. He had no problem with John Murray, a Universalist who denied eternal damnation. According to such logic, he would have wanted Muslim chaplains for Muslim soldiers, if we had any.

Washington also invariably spoke of "Christianity" in the context of morality or virtue; he believed religion's prime purpose was not to save souls but to make men moral. As such if the ends are achieved, the means don't matter. He could just have easily told a bunch of Muslim soldiers to display the character of good Muslims.

You can say what you want about me twisting whatever, the bottom line is the majority of scholars and historians are more or less on my side and not yours.

In fact, I'm probably to the right of them. They are likely to categorize him as a "Deist," I don't. Because he believed in an active personal God, and in prayer, I think the term "theistic rationalist" better describes his creed. Think of that as sort of a mean between deism and Christianity with rationalism as the trumping element. The term was coined by a conservative evangelical. And Dr. Gary Smith, chair of the history dept. at Grove City College endorses theistic rationalism, not Christian or Deist as the best descriptor of Washington's creed.

James Wilson, Theistic Rationalist:

James Wilson was (or likely was), like the other key Founders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin) a theistic rationalist, as opposed to a strict deist or orthodox Christian.

Wilson in his Works expressed a nuanced and often oddly interesting view on reason and revelation which points to his belief in theistic rationalism. While orthodox Christians believe the Bible is infallible and man's reason is subservient to revelation, and while strict deists believed all revelation is false and God revealed Himself only through nature discoverable by man's reason, theistic rationalists believed God revealed Himself primarily (not exclusively) through nature, not scripture, and as such only partially inspired the Bible. As Dr. Frazer put it in his seminal article on the subject, "revelation was designed to complement reason (not vice versa). Reason was the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God."

What follows, some of Wilson's quotations that support theistic rationalism:

Wilson believed God revealed Himself through both nature and scripture. Wilson seemed to view both reason and revelation as, by themselves, incomplete, and put together largely complementary. From his Works, Volume I:

[H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is ― to discover the will of God ― and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end.

However, as a theistic rationalist, he believes reason is primary:

[F]or obligation is nothing more than a restriction of liberty produced by reason. Reason, then, independent of law, is sufficient to impose some obligation on man, and to establish a system of morality and duty.82

[...]

Reason, say they, is the first rule of man, the first principle of morality, and the immediate cause of all primitive obligation. But man being necessarily dependent on his Creator, who has formed him with wisdom and design, and who, in creating him, has proposed some particular ends; the will of God is another rule of human actions, another principle of morality, obligation, and duty. On this distinction, the kinds of obligation, external and internal, are founded. These two principles must be united, in order to form a complete system of morality, really founded on the nature and state of man. As a rational being, he is subject to reason: as a creature of God, to his supreme will. Thus, reason and the divine will are perfectly reconciled, are naturally connected, and are strengthened by their junction.85

Wilson then notes why "reason" can establish law is because God has imbued man with a "moral sense."

This moral sense, from its very nature, is intended to regulate and control all our other powers. It governs our passions as well as our actions. Other principles may solicit and allure; but the conscience assumes authority, it must be obeyed. Of this dignity and commanding nature we are immediately conscious, as we are of the power itself. It estimates what it enjoins, not merely as superiour in degree, but as superiour likewise in kind, to what is recommended by our other perceptive powers. Without this controlling faculty, endowed as we are with such a variety of senses and interfering desires, we should appear a fabrick destitute of order but possessed of it, all our powers maybe harmonious and consistent; they may all combine in one uniform and regular direction.

In short; if we had not the faculty of perceiving certain things in conduct to be right, and others to be wrong; and of perceiving our obligation to do what is right, and not to do what is wrong; we should not be moral and accountable beings.

When Wilson discusses revelation, he makes clear Scripture's role is to support reason and conscience, not the other way around. The context makes clear that reason is primary, revelation secondary:

Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance. They are useful and excellent monitors; but, at some times, their admonitions are not sufficiently clear; at other times, they are not sufficiently powerful; at all times, their influence is not sufficiently extensive. Great and sublime truths, indeed, would appear to a few; but the world, at large, would be dark and ignorant. The mass of mankind would resemble a chaos, in which a few sparks, that would diffuse a glimmering light, would serve only to show, in a more striking manner, the thick darkness with which they are surrounded. Their weakness is strengthened, their darkness is illuminated, their influence is enlarged by that heaven-descended science, which has brought life and immortality to light. In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.

Next, notice what Wilson earmarks as the revelation's most important teachings:

On some important subjects, those in particular, which relate to the Deity, to Providence, and to a future state, our natural knowledge is greatly improved, refined, and exalted by that which is revealed. On these subjects, one who has had the advantage of a common education in a christian country, knows more, and with more certainty, than was known by the wisest of the ancient philosophers.

Not things like the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement or other creeds central to orthodox Christianity in which Wilson gives no indication that he believes; but rather "the Deity, to Providence, and to a future state," things first knowable from nature or reason, and which revelation's role is to "improve[], refine[], and exalt[]."

Interesting, Wilson next seems to almost elevate the scripture to a level of supremacy: "Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick."

But then claims scripture is deficient and repeats his assertion that scripture was not designed as God's primary revelation to man, but as a secondary revelation to man in what he already knows from reason and conscience:

But whoever expects to find, in [Scripture], particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil.

Wilson then notes, reason and revelation largely operate together, but reason is supreme:

These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels: it should flow in one united stream, which, by its combined force and just direction, will impel us uniformly and effectually towards our greatest good.

Finally, one reason I don't think Wilson believed the Bible infallible or inerrant is he then denies the possibility of miracles:

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature's laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency.

Final final comment: Even though Wilson, like Blackstone whom he cites a few times in Works, tips his epistemological hat to scripture in a few places, Wilson and Blackstone hardly ever actually cite scripture in their works. For all of their dithering on reason and revelation and which is supposed to do what, the overwhelming majority of Wilson's and Blackstone's works are not the product of scripture, but rather, of reasoning.

As Gary North provocatively put it when talking about Blackstone in this regard:

[H]e then spent four volumes describing English common law with only a few footnote references to the Bible. In the first three volumes, running almost 500 pages each, each has one footnote reference to the Bible. The fourth volume, on criminal law(Public Wrongs), has ten references. Not one of them is taken by Blackstone as authoritative for civil law; they were seen merely as historical examples. There is not a single reference to “Bible,” “Moses,” or “Revelation” in the set’s index.

...Englishmen commonly tipped the brim of their epistemological caps to God and the Bible, but they did not take off their caps in the presence of God....It was considered sufficient for Blackstone to have formally equated biblical law with natural law. Having done so, he could then safely ignore biblical law.

[...]

This raises another question: Was Blackstone in fact deliberately lying? In a perceptive essay by David Berman, we learn of a strategy that had been in use for over a century: combating a position by supporting it with arguments that are so weak that they in fact prove the opposite....If he was not lying, then he was naive beyond description, for his lame defense of biblical revelation greatly assisted the political triumph of the enemies of Christianity in the American colonies.

LOL. In the future, I might do a whole post on North's view on Blackstone entitled "Blackstone's Lame Defense of Scripture." When North states, "the enemies of Christianity in the American," he means they were enemies of theocrats who wanted the Bible to rule America's civil law. And those "enemies" were America's key Founders who enacted its republican constitutional order.

Violin in Rock:

I always wondered why the violin didn't make more of an impact in rock music. Maybe it's because it's too fancy of an instrument. Still, played right, it fits perfectly in rock. The fanciness, might, though make the violin more suited for fusion and progressive rock, the few notable places it has made an impact in rock oriented music.

What brings this to mind is Andrew Sullivan's guest blogger's posting a novice violinist's playing Van Halen's Eruption:



Some notable examples of heavy jamin' violin. Country House Shuffle by the Dixie Dregs, a great jazz fusion band. Steve Morse on guitar, Jerry Goodman on violin.



Goodman originally played with John McLaughlin's Mahavishnu Orchestra in the 70s. Here is Noonward Race:



For progressive rock, Kansas had the violin market cornered. Steve Morse, of Dixie Dregs fame, actually played with Kansas in the 80s, but alas, attempted to produce more commercial hit oriented tunes (they dropped the violin!), leaving me wondering what could have been. Here is Point of Know Return, played recently, featuring violinist David Ragsdale, not the original violinist, but better:



Walsh's voice sounds a bit worn, but he gives it his all. Here is what they sounded like in the 70s with their original violinist Robby Steinhardt, before Steve Walsh lost tone from his hauntingly smooth voice. This tune, Hopelessly Human, from the album Point of Know Return, is one of Kerry Livgren's largely unknown progressive rock gems, and perfectly encapsulates an electronic chamber music feel. I love how the violin is played through a flanger:



I never got into the Dave Matthews Band, but someone will kill me if I don't feature this as authentic violin rock:



Finally, just to show you what the violin can sound like played real loud, virtuosically, with distortion, Mark Wood:



Let's here more violin in rock!

Peron on James Madison's Creed:

Check out this post by Jim Peron on James Madison's religion. We see things pretty much eye-to-eye. The bottom line on Madison is that while he may have briefly flirted with orthodox Christianity when he was at Princeton, soon after he came home he abandoned that creed for what I would call theistic rationalism. David Holmes of William and Mary uses the term "moderate deism," and James H. Hutson (whose paper Peron references) speaks of "the many mansions of deism" to describe Madison's creed. In other words his creed was deist like, but not strict deism. Theistic rationalism could be seen as a broader form of deism, but also a more liberal form of Christianity (hence Holmes' term "Christian-Deism," as opposed to the "non-Christian-Deism" of Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen). But strictly speaking, arguably it is neither deism nor Christianity, hence the need for a new term.

Certainly Madison began adulthood as an orthodox Christian. Shortly after his graduation from, what would become Princeton, he wrote a friend suggesting that their generation become “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” But as historian James Hutson, for the Library of Congress, noted: “Two months later Madison renounced his spiritual prospects and began the study of law... For the rest of his life there is no mention in his writings of Jesus Christ nor of any of the issues that might concern practicing Christians. Late in retirement there are a few enigmatic references to religion, but nothing else.”

Biographer Irving Brant quoted Rev. Alexander Balmaine regarding Madison. Balmaine was married to one of Madison’s cousins and was the minister who performed his marriage ceremony. And Balmaine said that Madison’s “religious feeling, however seems to have been short lived. His political associates were those of infidel principles, of whom there were many in his day, if they did not actually change his creed, yet subjected him to a general suspicion of it.” In addition Brant quotes the local Episcopal Bishop, William Meade, who recounted that a conversation with Madison took an unexpected turn, at Madison’s instigation. The comments made by Madison, wrote the Bishop, “left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible.” And Brant quoted a gentleman who had dinner with Madison. Madison queried the man about “how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.”

Bishop Meade said that whatever “may have been the private sentiments of Mr Madison on the subject of religion, he was never known to declare any hostility to it.” He, like the deist Washington, attended a local church and invited ministers to his home but “did not kneel himself at prayers.” And Hutson notes that Madison went for long stretches of time without bothering himself with any church service. And at one point he told the governor of Vermont, with Jefferson standing there, that he had not attended church for “several years”.

David Barton's Phony Quotations, The Musical:

A little while ago, Chris Rodda blogged about a song by Carman, called America Again which reproduces a plethora of David Barton's phony quotations. You can watch the video here:

Get Well Joe:

Let's hope fusion keyboardist Joe Zawinul of Weather Report fame gets well. I didn't realize how old he was (75).

On a personal note, regarding jazz, like country, I tend not to like it served straight up, but as a fusion element mixed in with a strong dose of rock or blues. And that's why I like Weather Report. To me that's how all jazz ought to be played (but technically this music isn't really jazz but fusion).

Here is Weather Report's classic Birdland featuring the late great Jaco Pastorius on bass:



It's also my opinion that the Manhattan Transfer's cover of the tune is an un-godly abomination. Seriously though, they are one of those groups whom I don't like, but realize it's more a matter of taste on my part, not talent on theirs.



I remember talking to my classical guitar teacher (he was a great teacher, by the way) who also played jazz music about Lawrence Welk, and how he was the butt of many jokes. [The joke I remember is, what's the difference between a moose and Lawrence Welk's orchestra? With a moose, the horns are in the front, the asshole is in the back.]

He noted that Welk's style wasn't for him (he called it too "herky jerky,") but you have to give him respect as a musical perfectionist. In other words, just because you don't like the style of a particular music, don't therefore negatively judge its substance (on another note -- this guitar teacher did exactly this with rock music; but that's neither here nore there).

But anyway the bald-headed guy in the blue leisure suit is just too much for me. He does look a little like Dan Castellenetta, the voice of Homer Simpson, and about a third of the other characters.

Why My Work Needs to be Done:

Again, some times I feel like I'm tackling a strawman given that few if any social conservatives scholars in respectable places in the academy push the Christian America thesis and that legitimate issues about church/state matters and proper interpretation of the Constitution's religion clauses remain.

Yet, it's obvious that millions of people believe in the Christian Nation nonsense, many of them making up the religious right "base" of the Republican party. Just scroll down the comments and see.

This column from WorldNutDaily by one Bryan Fisher typifies such utter misunderstanding about how the Founding Fathers viewed God. If these folks want to argue we shouldn't have a Hindu prayer in the Senate because that pays homage to false gods and thus might anger the one true God, fine. Just don't drag the Founding Fathers into this, the key ones of which believed that Hindus worshipped the same God Jews and Christians do.

Mr. Fisher writes:

Hindus believe in a virtually infinite number of gods and worship cows, monkeys and snakes. Our Founding Fathers, on the other hand, believed in one God: The Creator God revealed in the Old and New Testaments, the God who is the source of our inalienable civil rights and liberties.

As a people, we pledge allegiance to "one nation under God," not "one nation under gods." Hindus are certainly free in America to worship as many gods and animals as they want to, but we must not be deluded into thinking that they pray to or worship the same God who is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

Congressional invocations are not just ceremonial in nature, but substantive. They are one of the crucial ways in which our leaders seek the assistance of the God who granted us such signal blessings at the time of our founding and for more than 200 years since.

For the sake of our country's future and continued prosperity, it's important that we maintain the custom of the Founders, so the god we call upon in congressional invocations continues to be the God of George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.

I know little about the religious beliefs of Roosevelt and Kennedy but know that Washington, Adams, and Madison were all syncretic universalists who believed many of the exotic non-Judeo-Christian religions, including Hinduism and Islam, worshipped the same God Jews and Christians worship.

It's funny Fisher used the word "deluded" to describe those who might argue Hindus worship the same Nature's God in the Declaration of Independence, because that's exactly what John Adams, America's second President who helped draft the Declaration, believed. As he wrote to the Declaration's author:

Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs. --- Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.”

-- John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.

Regarding the whole one god/many gods issue, Hindus claim to worship one God who has many different manifestations (thousands or more). This logic is similar to Trinitarianism where Christians claim to worship one God who has three distinct persons.

Madison and Washington likewise believed non-Judeo-Christian religions worshipped the one true God of the universe. When they spoke to Native Americans, both of them referred to God as "the Great Spirit," exactly as the Indians call Him (for Madison see here, and Washington see here and here). I've seen Christian take umbrage at the notion that Allah is the same God they worship. Well, at least Allah claims to be the God of Abraham. The Great Spirit, I don't believe, makes that claim.

A-Biblical v. Anti-Biblical:

Jim Babka, who does Yeoman's work fighting for liberty as head of Downsize DC, left a few comments on my post about the concept of the State of Nature. I intended to make two quick points responding to his first post, but I went on a bit of a digression. My response clarifies what I mean when I use the term "a-biblical" to describe Locke's concept of the State of Nature and I shed some light on why socially conservative Republican Straussian philosophers like Harvey Mansfield, Walter Berns, Thomas Pangle, and Robert Kraynak believe we should strictly construe the Constitution without viewing man as a being endowed with unalienable natural rights in a Lockean (or Jeffersonian-Madisonian) sense. I'm going to reproduce Jim's first comment and then my response.

Jon, Part I

It is not necessary to make Locke's approach a-Biblical or anti-Biblical to make the point that the State of Nature should be a libertarian state.

In fact, Locke wasn't a libertarian, at least in the modern sense. Going one step further, this notion of liberty as not "license" is sophistry. We've since learned Locke was wrong about that, though many continue his error.

Liberty encourages personal responsibility.

Liberty is also permission to fail without government sanction for so doing.

One can do drugs, engage in promiscuous sex, or advocate gluttony by example. And if one does so, only nature has the right to impose a penalty -- not the State. That's a necessary part of liberty.

Locke built his formulation, starting with Adam in the Garden. In this "brief" piece, that was the part you chose to cut from the quote. I would go so far as to suggest that Adam was essential, from Locke's perspective and time, to his case.

But the Biblical allusions remained in those parts you did quote and they are repetitive to the point that one must want to miss them. And as if that's not enough, his favorite source to quote is Hooker -- an Anglican theologian.

Locke, like his friend Newton, was, apparently, a "fundamentalist Unitarian" -- something entirely different than the Unitarians of today. Further, Locke insisted that atheists were not fit to serve in government and couldn't be trusted. Reason was not his god. Reason, for a natural theologian, was a special tool God had given humans. And it had been given to all men, not just kings. This made man "equal."

This was revolutionary and very much countered Hobbes.

But it's Frazer's words, as quoted in your piece, that bother me most. His account of Eden must be a personal axe to grind. I read the same Bible yet don't see what he sees. I see the first humans left with Free Will. And unless I take a hyper-literalist view of the story of The Fall, then I see precisely what Locke saw -- natural consequences in the face of disobedience to natural law.

But even if I do take a literalist view, could an all-powerful, omniscient God have been caught off-guard? When I ask Evangelicals, was God caught by surprise when Adam and Eve took a bite of the apple? Can you imagine God saying, "Oops, I didn't see that coming?" Not one Evangelical I've spoken with has answered differently.

Since God didn't prevent this action in advance, He must've been willing to accord humanity Free Will.

And so, the question becomes, if it was good enough for God, why not for you? ...and for your government? This is, in discussion with a Christian, a persuasive argument for individual liberty as the created state of man.

Similarly, Romans 13 is a favored hobby horse for you to prove that there's no way the Founders were real Christians because the Bible opposes liberty. And you raise this specter, again, in this piece.

I may not agree with every point of this entire series I'm about to recommend, but I think blogger Steve Scott's commentary on Romans 13 is more accurate than the view you, and apparently Frazer, have of that passage. I encourage you to check it out.

But my most important point -- the reason I write -- is that it is correct to label the Founders as outside of orthodox Christianity -- the very place Barton, et al, place him. But it is not correct to make them a-Biblical. Theistic rationalism is accurate, as far as it goes. But very clearly, Locke was quite Biblical. And equally clear, Locke was influential on the Founders.

No one is wrong on purpose. Each is convinced of the rightness of his position, and thus advocates it. Locke, his contemporary Newton, and the Arians/Socians/Unitarians that followed, were, in their own minds, advocates of "true Christianity." David Barton and his ilk certainly haven't cornered the market in what it means to be a Christian.

It is perfectly consistent for a Christian to favor classic liberalism. A Christian who does so is not contradicting scripture in so doing. Rather, they are, IMHO, honoring the Creator's intent in "loving their neighbor," by embracing this high view of man.

My response:

Jim:

I want to respond this in more detail, but off the bat let me make two quick points.

First, re: Frazer, Locke, and Eden, this isn't, I don't believe anything personal on his part. In reading his Ph.D., and in knowing about Claremont Graduate College where Straussian thought is popular, he relies on the interpretation of a number of Straussian scholars to reach his conclusion. He's also read the originals (Locke and the Bible) and agrees with various scholars like Walter Berns, Michael Zuckert, Thomas Pangle, and Leo Strauss himself on Locke's a-biblical understanding of the state of nature.

I do too. Though, I try to be more cautious than some of the above named Straussians in my argumentation (Frazer argues cautiously in his thesis as well). They have a tendency to read in things that aren't there, as part of their belief that philosophers encoded esoteric messages in their texts. And they are justified in doing this to some extent. Locke et al. were not free to speak their minds. Challenging orthodox opinions could get you criminally punished, even executed (see Servetus and many others like him). There was no free speech back then. That's why these Enlightenment philosophers argued for the concept!

Still, in a debate like this where there is much controversy about what the Founders and the philosophers they followed really believed, I think it's best to take people at their word.

And when I take Locke at his word, I see his vision of the state of nature as "a-biblical" -- a modified version of Hobbes' (whose state of nature, ironically, is closer to the traditional orthodox Christian notion of original sin and mans' depravity than Locke's).

Let me carefully explain what I mean by "a-biblical." I don't necessarily mean contrary to or inconsistent with the Bible. If I did I would have used the words "anti-biblical." Indeed, some of those Straussians like Berns and especially Pangle do indeed believe Locke's state of nature and his book "The Reasonableness of Christianity" were "anti-biblical."

One day I should feature some of Pangle's more provocative quotations on Locke which make assertions that go much farther than I ever would.

"A-biblical" means not derived from the Bible, but not necessarily inconsistent with the Bible. A good Christian can believe in something that is "a-biblical"; he just shouldn't try to credit the Bible or his faith with the concept. Similarly, I'm willing to categorize the right to revolt, a la Romans 13 as "a-biblical," not necessarily "anti-biblical" (though I think the Christian Tories' understanding of Romans 13 which viewed America's Revolution as a biblically unjustified act -- hence "anti-biblical" -- to be reasonable as well).

Think of republican government as our Founders envisioned it like an automobile. The car is not an "inherently" Christian idea. It was not made for Christians, by Christians, for the purpose of getting to church easier. It's an "a-biblical" invention. But, it's legitimate for Christians to use automobiles precisely for that purpose! Perhaps it's also legitimate for conservative evangelicals and Catholics to use republican government to promote their values as well. One could reasonably argue that the original meaning of the Constitution never was intended to prevent, as the ACLU believes, government and religion to connect in that sense. That's I think, ultimately how Berns, Pangle, Kraynak and the other socially conservative Straussians who argue "The Spirit of Modern Republicanism" (a title to one of Pangle's books) is a-biblical or anti-biblical believe we should interpret the Constitution. That's also why, they believe, we shouldn't interpret the Constitution with the view that man is a creature endowed with unalienable natural rights, because that might prevent conservative citizens from being able to use the organs of the state to enforce traditional morality.

But, as you and I would both agree, the state need not be used for that purpose for the Christian religion to flourish. And invariably, such "morals" legislation do more harm than good.

Count the Typos:

Note to new bloggers: If you want to convince people that you have good ideas and arguments, it's best to present your posts in well-written form. Now, we all make typos and the occasional grammatical error. But when your opening paragraph is as bad as this, you are bound not to make a good first impression.

Positive Liberty's Jon Rowe, as well as the secular progressive movement continue to distort our Founding Father's view of the Law of Nature(State of Nature), by violating the Framers and Christian Philosophers' application of words. Rowe's latest post is incorrect because he attributes philosophical wordage, an abandonment of a biblical view.

But then again, when you read, or attempt to get through the post in its entirety...one can only conclude the blogger should not bother to "fix" the grammar problems in the post because, as the music production and engineering professors used to tell us at Berklee College of Music -- you can't polish a turd.

Progressive Rock Tuesday Night:

First Rick Wakeman, keyboardist of Yes fame, shredding:



Next since one of Andrew Sullivan's guest bloggers featured Genesis' Dancing with the Moonlit Knight and noted Steve Hackett's excellent guitar play, I thought I'd feature it here:



Speaking of Hackett, he had a solo album entitled Please Don't Touch which featured a progressive pop-rock song entitled Narnia, which had Kansas' Steve Walsh (whom Hackett once said possessed "the perfect white rock voice") on vocals. Unfortunately Walsh isn't singing it on the following YouTube clip.



But here is Walsh and the rest of Kansas doing Point of Know Return. This was a prog-pop-rock tune that was a minor hit. Their other two big ones were written by Kerry Livgren (who wrote most of their material). This hit was Walsh's.



Walsh's voice has lost some tone and range and that disappoints a lot of folks who come to see Kansas. Though he still sings better than most. This is what he sounded like when I saw them on July 4 of this year -- from that very concert. Their violin player David Ragsdale, not the original, absolutely shreds. They are worth seeing for Ragsdale alone.





Finally, what would a libertarian prog-rock website be without Rush. From 2112.

A Note on the "Key Founders":

Folks skeptical of the theistic rationalist theory note that it overemphasizes certain Founders and ignores others. Well, those whom I term the "key Founders," were indeed the key Founders. Let's take the top five: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin. These five represent the first four Presidents (the first four names on the list, like I needed to tell you), the chief architect of the Constitution (Madison), the author of the Declaration (Jefferson), and the majority of the drafting board of the Declaration (Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson). Gregg Frazer adds Hamilton, Wilson, and G. Morris as theistic rationalists. With that addition we have the men who wrote the overwhelming majority of the Federalist Papers (Hamilton and Madison), and the prime players at the Constitutional Convention (Washington, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Wilson, and Morris). These also happen to be the men who appear on our currency. So they are the key Founders. Period.

A note on their religious explication. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin were, without question, theistic rationalists. And we know this because of how they explicitly detailed their religious creed. Concerning Washington, Madison, Hamilton (before 1800 after which he became "born-again"), G. Morris and James Wilson, I've studied their utterances on religion in meticulous detail and I believe the evidence strongly points towards their being theistic rationalists just like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams unquestionably were. Yet, unlike those three who explicitly detailed their creed mainly in private letters, those five tended to speak about God and religion in more general terms and fewer smoking gun quotations that reject or affirm the tenets of orthodox Christianity exist.

Those five invariably spoke, both publicly and privately, about God in a generic or philosophical way. Such utterances could be consistent with both theistic rationalism or orthodox Christianity. But what does it then say that when Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson talked about God, they purposefully did so in such a vague and generic way that you couldn't distinguish their creed from either the orthodox Christians' or the theistic rationalists' like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin? [Keep in mind they lived at a time when one was expected to affirm the tenets of orthodox Christianity and when it was widely known that many in elite Whig circles secretly trafficked in "infidel principles."] Their systematic generic way of speaking about God certainly does nothing to forward the "Christian Nation" thesis as posited by Barton, Federer, and Kennedy.

Regarding what the 200 and some odd Founding Fathers believed in as a whole, whether orthodox Christians or theistic rationalists constituted a statistical majority of the Founders is unknown. All that can be shown is that the overwhelming majority of them, like Jefferson and Franklin, were in some way formally or nominally connected to a Christian Church that professed orthodoxy. John Adams' Congregation was supposed to be preaching orthodox Christian doctrines (New England Congregationalists were of Puritan origin). But by 1750 his Church ministers preached Unitarianism. (The formal creed change didn't occur until the 19th Century; but that's because Unitarians were so anti-creedal, they didn't want to exclude anyone, not the Calvinist Trinitarians, from the Congregational Church. Ultimately, it was the Calvinist Congregationalists who disfellowed themselves from the Unitarians in the early 19th Century.)

And that's why M.E. Bradford's 52 out of the 55 or 50 out of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were orthodox Christians statistic is bunk. Plenty of folks formally connected to a Christian Church were deists, unitarians, or otherwise not "Christians" in the orthodox Trinitarian sense.

The State of Nature:

The Founding Fathers made the concept of "the state of nature" key in declaring independence. The following passage from Alexander Hamilton in 1775 constitutes a typical Whig use of the concept:

Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety.

Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him; except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity.

Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent?

[I want to make this post brief. It could be much longer if I decided to try to reproduce every quotation from the founding era relying on the s.o.n. concept.]

The idea of the state of nature traces to Hobbes. Though the form that our Founders embraced was Locke's. This is important: Locke's state of nature differed from Hobbes' and provided the model our Founders followed when they declared independence; but the concept of the state of nature itself was nonetheless formulated by Hobbes.

Why is this important: Locke may have been a Christian (this is disputed; he called himself Christian and defended his understanding of the Christian religion; but he denied original sin, and on the Trinity was an Arian heretic) but Hobbes clearly wasn't. Locke's notion of a state of nature may have seemed more consistent with Christianity than Hobbes' (though, ironically, Hobbes' belief on the depravity of human nature is closer to orthodox Christianity than Locke's Tabla Rasa which denies original sin) but the concept of the state of nature, be it Hobbes', Locke's, or Rousseau's, is, in the words of Leo Strauss, "wholly alien to the Bible." Thus, whichever of the three philosophers' concepts of the state of nature is being invoked, we are speaking in Enlightenment, not Biblical terms whether the speaker is a Christian, a Deist, something else, or whose religious beliefs are disputed.

Again, because of the desired brevity of this post, I am not going to detail the differences between the three philosophers' understandings of the states of nature, but will reproduce Locke's own words, which are key to our Founding:

4. To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

5. This equality of men by Nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are:

"The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty to love others than themselves, for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men weak, being of one and the same nature: to have anything offered them repugnant to this desire must needs, in all respects, grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should show greater measure of love to me than they have by me showed unto them; my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant." (Eccl. Pol. i.)*

* Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.

6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation. For the law of Nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain if there were nobody that in the state of Nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders; and if any one in the state of Nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so. For in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

8. And thus, in the state of Nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet no absolute or arbitrary power to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will, but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint. For these two are the only reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so he becomes dangerous to mankind; the tie which is to secure them from injury and violence being slighted and broken by him, which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of Nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and, by his example, others from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of Nature.

Now, because Locke 1) has God take a central role in this theory, and 2) called himself a Christian and defended the Christian religion as "reasonable," otherwise uninformed folks could easy confuse Locke's teachings from his second treatise with authentically Christian principles. However, they are not. When one opens his Bible and compares what Locke wrote with Genesis, one unmistakably concludes, in Dr. Gregg Frazer's words:

The biblical account of Eden and the origin of human society bears little resemblance to a world of free agents restrained only by natural law forming society on the basis of voluntary consent. (Ph.D. dissertation, p. 369.)

Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke's teachings. As Dr. Robert Kraynak of Colgate University, a devout Catholic, put it, instructing Christians of the a-biblical origins of America's Founding thought: "We must face the disturbing dilemma that modern liberal democracy needs God, but God is not as liberal or as democratic as we would like Him to be." Because the biblical God wasn't as "republican" as the Founders needed Him to be, they remade Him in accord with their Whig sentiments. And in doing so, arguably they invoked a different God -- a benevolent unitarian deity -- the God of the theistic rationalists, not the biblical God.

Anyway, such Enlightenment rationalist system of thought was so effective and attractive that even orthodox Christians became imbibed in it, and relied on such when they argued for America's independence. I've heard it said that even the supposed Deists like Jefferson and Franklin were influenced by a "biblical worldview." To some extent, this is true; they grew up attending orthodox Christian Churches. Yet the converse is also true: Even orthodox Christians like John Witherspoon, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and John Jay were influenced by an a-biblical Enlightenment worldview, especially when they argued for republicanism.

Orthodox Christians needed to rely on such an a-biblical Enlightenment system of thought because the Bible simply doesn't speak to issues with which the Whig republicans were concerned (like a right to revolt). I was listening to a speech given by John MacAurthur -- a fire breathing fundamentalist whose theology certainly ain't my cup of tea -- where he made a very apt point: Jesus didn't overturn one social institution. Not slavery, not any of the illiberal forms of government. Not one. He was concerned with spiritual not temporal issues. And indeed, Paul instructs Christians, in Romans 13, in no uncertain terms, to obey an illiberal, undemocratic, unelected tyrant who never sought consent to rule over believers. Arguably speaking, the Bible forbids all revolt (which would make the American Revolution an un-Biblical act -- exactly what the orthodox Christian Tories argued). The best Christians can argue is Romans 13 applied only to a certain time period and doesn't stand in the way of revolting against tyrants. Perhaps. But nowhere does the Bible instruct or explicitly permit such revolt.

What I've shown doesn't mean Christians should stay out of politics. But it does show that those who argue the Founders, in establishing 18th century republicanism, gave us the true "biblical" form of government (the "Christian Nation" thesis) peddle an historical fraud.

Knowing what we now know about "the state of nature" and its a-biblical etiology, let me conclude with an example of an orthodox Christian speaking in such Enlightenment terms. Samuel Adams:

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

Now, Samuel Adams may have been, unlike John, an orthodox Christian, but there is nothing biblical about what I've just reproduced; it is pure Lockean liberalism which is Enlightenment rationalism to the core. And Adams tells us exactly where he got his ideas from: Locke.

And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.

I've long shown that the key Founders -- those most responsible for declaring independence, constructing the Constitution, and then leading the newly formed nation -- were not orthodox Christians, but theistic rationalists. Their "enlightened" God better fit the needs of Whig republicanism than the Biblical God did. Perhaps that's one reason why non-Christians played such leading roles. Without question, Jefferson, (John) Adams, and Franklin were theistic rationalists. I'd argue that Washington, Madison, and Hamilton were as well (though their creed remains disputed). But ultimately the ideas that dominated America's Founding were Enlightenment rationalist ideas, not authentically Christian ideas. And that's because the Bible spoke little to what the Whigs were trying to accomplish. Whether, for instance, Hamilton was an orthodox Christian or a theistic rationalist when he wrote the above reproduced, The Farmer Refuted in 1775 ultimately is irrelevant. The ideas Hamilton posited there were Enlightenment rationalist not Biblical notions.

He Don't Like Me Very Much:

Someone takes umbrage at my -- and my "secular progressive" friends -- understanding of the philosophy of the US Founding. And who are some of those "secular progressives"?

Jon Rowe, Ed Brayton, Lenni Brenner, Forrest Church, Mark Wheldon Whitten, Tom Van Dyke, Radio host Tom Hartmann, Dr. Gregg Frazer, or any other revisionist that denies the Biblical foundations the United States was built on....

The Adams on Hamilton:

John Adams called Alexander Hamilton a “bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar,” who had a "superabundance of secretions which he could not find whores enough to draw off." Finally Adams decried “the profligacy of his life; his fornications, adulteries and his incests.”

Abigail wasn't much nicer. "Oh, I have read his heart in his wicked eyes. The very devil is in them. They are lasciviousness itself."

They thought he was a real perv. LOL.

Ed Brayton on CSPAN:

Be sure to catch Positive Liberty's own Ed Brayton on CSPAN presenting from the YearlyKos Conference, whenever they decide to broadcast it.

Reagan and Bush Sodomite Republican Presidents!

Here is some news on what Paul Cameron, the fraud who fabricated "studies" showing that median homosexual lifespans are from 39-43, is up to.

Ed Brayton tipped me off to this gem.

Houston, TX., July 31/Covenant News Wire Service/ "So, George Bush and Karl Rove have always used homosexuality as a weapon, have righteously opposed it and have routinely accused people of it, knowing that those people were normal, while all along they have colluded to make the Republican Party a sodomite organization from the top down."

That's the theme of the latest, incendiary book by Alan Stang, who says Republican leaders are using homosexuality to terrify critics into silence, so they can bring the United States to its knees. The foreword by Paul Cameron, Ph.D., chairman of the Family Research Institute, reinforces that theme.

[...]

Not Holier is not a squeamish dance around the issue. It exposes the homosexual ring in the Reagan and both Bush White Houses. It names names and tells who is in bed with whom: "If Clinton is our first ‘black' President, Ronald Reagan is our first ‘homosexual' President. . . . For the record, Bush strategist Karl Rove's late father, Louis Rove, was a homosexual, which could be the reason Karl's mother committed suicide."