So Weird and Hateful that they Fascinate:

The following is part three of a seven part documentary from the BBC on the Westboro Baptist Church. This one in particular features a man who began as a documentary reporter and joined the cult. They are so weird, extreme, and hateful that they entertain.

Vlogging!

Founders' Belief on Religion & Morality Expresses their Heterodoxy:

Giving credit where credit is due, this symposium from Regent University is well worth watching. Among others, Hadley Arkes, Daniel Dreisbach, Michael Novak, Michael Barone, and Marvin Olasky present interesting commentary much of which discusses the Founders and Religion. Dreisbach in particular goes over Washington's Farewell Address in meticulous detail. In that address Washington famously said,

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Now, while that sentiment certainly conflicts with extreme modern secularism ala Harris and Dawkins, and though on the surface, sounds as if it expresses traditional Christian piety, upon further reflection -- indeed if one realizes what the key Founders like Washington really personally believed -- it arguably expresses their religious heterodoxy.

The key Founders -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and some others -- believed that religion was primarily good because it fostered morality. And in this sentiment, all five, including Jefferson and Madison, were agreed. The orthodox Calvinistic Christians believed that the primary purpose of religion was to save souls. The key Founders elevated works over faith as more important towards salvation. And whereas orthodox Christians believed that only Christianity was true religion, the key Founders, including Washington, believed most if not all of the world religions of which they were aware were "sound" religions which provided the necessary moral supports which republics need and could save men's souls. These religions included, at the very least, Christianity, Deism, Unitarianism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Native American Spirituality, and Pagan Ancient Greco-Roman worship.

Here are some quotations of the Founders expressing their heterodox anti-Calvinist notion that works are more important than faith:

"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.

Franklin's logic is quite clear: If non-Christian religions produce virtue in people, then those "good people" are saved via their works. So the primary aim of Christianity and all other religions is to produce good people. Christians might have some special advantage over the other world religions in that Jesus of Nazareth, our key Founders believed, was a great, arguably the greatest moral teacher. Thus, Christians' best hope for salvation was to follow his teachings and example. (Indeed, I'm not going to exhaust the historical record with quotations, but this past post on the Founders & higher law also features Franklin arguing along these lines.)

Finally, Adams on the true purpose of Christianity:

"...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

As mentioned, the key Founders did talk of true religion and sound religion. An orthodox Christian hearing that message might conclude they referred only to Christianity. But that is a mistake. From my research, sound religion means -- as Franklin put it to Ezra Stiles -- only that one believe in the following:

I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.

In other words, nothing about the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, inerrancy of Scripture, or anything that distinguishes Christianity from the other world religions. Indeed, by removing what distinguishes Christianity, that allows non-Christian religions to qualify as "sound." (Or, if anything distinguished Christianity, in their minds, it was Jesus' moral teachings being better than anything else in other world religions). As Franklin goes on:

These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them.

Note: According to the Founders, people could believe in all sorts of things in addition to the generic theism that forms the basis of "sound religion." And these additional things were at best, harmless dogmas, at worse "corruptions" of true religion which brought disputes, often bloody. But these additional tenets happen to be the very things that distinguish one belief system like orthodox Christianity from another, like Islam. Here Franklin notes the unimportance of the Trinity -- a central teaching of orthodox Christianity:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire...I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Believers, in his Government of the World, with any particular Marks of his Displeasure.

Jefferson stated something remarkably similar. In this letter to James Fishback, Sept. 27, 1809, Jefferson connects religion with morality, just as Washington did, but further specifies that all world religions produce such morality:

Every religion consists of moral precepts, and of dogmas. In the first they all agree. All forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, bear false witness &ca. and these are the articles necessary for the preservation of order, justice, and happiness in society. In their particular dogmas all differ; no two professing the same. These respect vestments, ceremonies, physical opinions, and metaphysical speculations, totally unconnected with morality, and unimportant to the legitimate objects of society. Yet these are the questions on which have hung the bitter schisms of Nazarenes, Socinians, Arians, Athanasians in former times, and now of Trinitarians, Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers &c. Among the Mahometans we are told that thousands fell victims to the dispute whether the first or second toe of Mahomet was longest; and what blood, how many human lives have the words 'this do in remembrance of me' cost the Christian world!...We see good men in all religions, and as many in one as another. It is then a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the [unimportant points] innocent questions on which we schismatize, and think it enough to hold fast to those moral precepts which are of the essence of Christianity, and of all other religions.

Through this perspective, go back and reread Washington's Farewell Address and see not only does it perfectly fit with the above quoted beliefs of Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson (indeed the Address was written by Hamilton, who like them was a theistic rationalist, not a Christian), arguably it's more in tune with such heterodox belief system than with Christianity (even ultimately, it if was consistent with both belief systems). Washington never said one need be Christian in order to be saved but rather that religion is necessary for morality. Indeed, he/they believed one was saved, not via Christ's Atonement, but via virtuous behavior. Washington further never stated in that Address that only the Christian religion or "the Bible" provided the necessary supports which all Republics need, even if I'm sure, many in nation got that message. Washington's Address represented a brilliant use of abstractions where he could express his heterodoxy in a way which seemed consistent with the prevailing orthodoxy of the day, yet still not outright lie.

Learned folks from both sides -- the religious right and secular left -- who, like me, have studied the historical record in detail still don't seem to fully appreciate this dynamic. Peter A. Lillback and Michael and Jana Novak conclude that were Washington a deist he was dishonest in the way he mislead pious folks or the nation by saying things which contradicted strict deism. They conclude were he an honest man, Washington must have been Christian, not deist. Indeed, even Brooke Allen accuses Jefferson of being dishonest when he says things too "religion" friendly -- praising Christianity, etc. -- for deism. I disagree with both.

If you understand what they really personally believed, we see these Founders did not explicitly lie to the public or pious folks; when Jefferson praised Christianity, he meant it. But what he praised about the Christian religion wasn't necessarily what orthodox Trinitarians thought most important. Jefferson valued the general theism of Christianity and Jesus' moral teachings while despising the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and other doctrines of orthodoxy.

These key Founders did, I think, believe things which orthodox folks would term "heterodoxy" or "infidelity." Intuitively, they didn't want their reputations so ruined. Thus, when they publicly spoke, they often brilliantly used generalities and abstractions, and otherwise built bridges of lowest-common-denominators between themselves and the orthodox believers so they didn't have to "lie" or contradict their personal beliefs, and could say things which on the surface seemed to resonate with orthodox Christianity; but beneath the surface, their personal "heterodoxy" remained.

It was a bit of a game they had to play; they walked on egg-shells. Perhaps in hiding in religious closets and not putting their "infidelity" on the table when so pressed, they were, at worst, misleading; but rarely if ever did they outright lie. Jefferson perfectly captured this not too well understood dynamic when he wrote about Washington, recounting an incident where a group of pious ministers pressed Washington about what he really believed, but he wouldn't play ball:

Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion and they tho[ugh]t they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice.

Jefferson then gives Gouverneur Morris's apparent opinion of Washington's orthodoxy:

I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.

Indeed, Washington corresponded with pious clergy throughout much of his life, often having to be cunning, carefully watching his words. Many believed him to be a pious Christian, and many had their doubts. His own ministers accused him of being a deist! One gets a sense in reading the correspondence that they were trying to "feel him out."

One can fault Lillback's and the Novaks' books for not properly understanding this dynamic whey they read "orthodoxy" or "pious Christianity" into Washington's often nebulously written words. Yet, Washington purposefully chose his words that way because he need to speak in ways which orthodox Christians would find acceptable. Lillback and the Novaks carry on the tradition of the pious Christians to whom Washington bore no apparent animosity and with whom he often corresponded. These Christians during the Founding era likewise "read in" what they wanted to Washington's words to make themselves more comfortable with his beliefs. Washington didn't correct their misimpression by stating -- "no, I really believe in X, which you would call 'infidelity'" -- but why should he have? He didn't want his public reputation ruined! As long as he didn't outright lie -- which he didn't -- I'd say his "honor" remained intact.

Lillback writes of such "Presbyterian Praise For Presidential Piety" (p. 226) -- a group of such wrote to Washington praising him for being a pious Christian. He wrote back:

While I reiterate the professions of my dependence upon Heaven as the source of all public and private blessings; I will observe that the general prevalence of piety; philanthropy, honesty, industry, and economy seems, in the ordinary course of human affairs, particularly necessary for advancing and conforming the happiness of our country. While all men within our territories and protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives and the beneficence of their actions; for 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.

I desire you to accept my acknowledgments for your laudable endeavors to render men sober, honest, and good Citizens, and the obedient subjects of a lawful government.

Lillback, reading in what he wants, sees this response as an affirmation of Washington's Christian orthodoxy, something no "Deist" could write. But such response is entirely consistent with what we have seen from Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. Indeed, when Washington states "for no man, who is profligate in his morals...can possibly be a true Christian" this may be consistent with James 2 -- "faith without works is dead" (what Lillback argues). However, nowhere does Washington state that men are justified through faith! And such response is every bit as consistent with Jefferson's anti-Calvinistic notion "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...."

And indeed, Lillback entirely misses a clue Washington left, perhaps a "slip" in writing to pious Presbyterians, of his heterodoxy. After Washington stated, "for no man, who is profligate in his morals...can possibly be a true Christian," he then adds "or a credit to his own religious society." Washington's sentiments are entirely consistent with Franklin's idea that Christianity's primary purpose is to make people good and following Franklin's logic -- "if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means" -- non-Christians can be saved if their creed fosters virtuous behavior. Hence, Washington's addition of "or a credit to his own religious society" right next to "a true Christian."

Washington ends his letter: "I desire you to accept my acknowledgments for your laudable endeavors to render men sober, honest, and good Citizens, and the obedient subjects of a lawful government." Which is exactly what Adams stated above: "...the design of Christianity was not to make men good Riddle Solvers or good mystery mongers, but good men, good magestrates and good Subjects...."

In sum, while one could analyze Washington's words to be consistent with orthodox Christianity, arguably his words are more consistent with the heterodox notion that elevates works over faith as essential for salvation and holds non-Christians can be saved through good works.

This analysis destroys Lillback's strawman conclusion that this event of Washington's correspondence shows "[e]ither Washington was a Christian, or he was a deceptive Deist. If he were the latter, his claim to be a man of honesty and character...was just as much of a sham as his counterfeit Christianity and his pretense of piety." p. 229.

Finally, if interested in what the key Founders believed happens when one isn't saved via good works, the answer is such men would be temporarily proportionately punished and then eventually redeemed; they were theological universalists who believed all would eventually be saved.

Washington is a tough nut to crack because he was so reticent to discuss his particular beliefs. His "strict deist" strawman is easily knocked down. However, I've yet to see the Novaks, Lillback or any scholar offer anything compelling that indicates Washington believed in orthodoxy Christianity as opposed to what Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Madison believe in. To me, his words (and deeds) resonate more so with their heterodox belief system than with orthodox Christianity.

Brooke Allen Endorses Term "Theistic Rationalist":

Brooke Allen, author of Moral Minority, a book on the religious beliefs of the key Founding Fathers responds to the conversation between Joseph Ellis and the Novaks on the Founders & Religion on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog. In responding to Ellis' first post, she writes:

The Founders that I concentrated on in my book, Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers were the six I considered the most famous and influential: Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. Like one of the respondents to Mr. Ellis’s first blog, it seems to me though while Mr. Ellis calls “diversity” the “dominant pattern” of these men’s beliefs, they actually had a great deal in common, all being what the blogger correctly calls “theistic rationalists.” None of these men, with the exception of Hamilton towards the end of his life, could strictly be called a Christian.

While I don’t see Washington as a pantheist, I think Mr. Ellis’s categorization of him as a Stoic is a good one; some of his contemporaries (as one can read in the letters of John Adams and Benjamin Rush) agreed with this description. To argue, as the Novaks do, that Washington’s use of 102 different names for the Deity is evidence of his adherence to Christianity is a fallacy; in fact, this practice indicates that he was a Deist rather than a Christian. When he made public pronouncements, he used vague and general names like this, without specific Christian connotations, so as to include all Americans, including Jews, Muslims, and American Indians. (One of the names the Novaks do not cite is “Great Spirit,” to which Washington assured his Native American listeners that he, like them, prayed.)

I am, of course, the blogger to whom she refers. Glad to see her endorse the term "theistic rationalist."

The Founders & Higher Law:

Ed Brayton sent me this post from Nathan Bradfield, a sort of clownish figure from the religious right on the Founding and Religion. The post has some quotations from our Founding Fathers about "higher law" that are easily misinterpreted. The Founders believed in both man made "positive" law, and God given "natural" law, which positive law, by right could not contradict. However the content of natural law was ascertainable entirely by man's reason, arguably unaided by revelation. Or, if revelation had any role to play in determining "the laws of nature and nature's God," it was to assist or provide support for man's reason, not the other way around. Further, though these Founders believed that reason and revelation mostly agreed, they also believed that some revelation was not legitimately given by God and had to pass the "reason" smell test to be true or part of the "higher" law that rules us and which no positive law could contradict. That is the lens through which we need to view the following quotations that Mr. Bradfield offers:

All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. --James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice--

The law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. --Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution--

The . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . This is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control. --Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution--

In fact, what Bradfield quoted from Hamilton is taken out of context; the actual quotation shows Hamilton referring to the "law of nature" and "nature" by its very definition in the Founding era refers to what man can discover from reason as opposed to revelation. To repeat, what is "dictated by God Himself" in this context, refers to reason, not the Bible. Here is the entire quotation from Hamilton:

Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensibly, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.

This is what is called the law of nature, "which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately, or immediately, from this original." Blackstone.

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.

Though he quotes from Blackstone, he does so in the context of arguing the "state of nature" theory, which is Hobbsean/Lockean in origin, and, as Leo Strauss put it, "wholly alien to the Bible." In any event the context of the quotation shows Hamilton clearly arguing for rules established by natural reason, not the Bible. Finally, note that when Hamilton wrote this, he was not a Christian and didn't become one until the end of his life after he had done his work "Founding" the nation. He believed in the same system of theistic rationalism/theological unitarianism, in which Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Madison believed.

Moreover, here is John Adams on the matter explaining that the laws of nature and nature's God are discovered by Reason, not Revelation.

To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.

-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson's, "The Founders on Religion," p. 132.

Adams clearly regarded reason superior to revelation. In the following letter to Jefferson (Dec. 25, 1813), he discusses Joseph Priestly's work and prefaces his statement to Jefferson by noting that Man's Reason is the Ultimate discerner of the Truth and that it takes precedence over Revelation; indeed it makes Revelation entirely unnecessary:

Priestly ought to have done impartial justice to Phylosophy and Phylosophers, Phylosophy which is the result of Reason, is the first, the original Revelation of The Creator to his Creature, Man. When this Revelation is clear and certain, by Intuition or necessary Induction, no subsequent Revelation supported by Prophecies or Miracles can supercede it.

Writing in 1735, here Ben Franklin says basically the same thing (note Franklin states these ideas in the context of defending a Presbyterian minister -- Samuel Hemphill -- from charges of "heterodoxy"; Hemphill was one of many ministers during the Founding era who preached what the orthodox termed "infidelity" from the pulpit):

Now that natural Religion, or that the Laws of our Nature oblige us to the highest Degrees of Love to God, and in consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker, to pay him all the Homage, Worship and Adoration we are capable of, and to do every thing we know he requires; and that the same Laws oblige us to the Love of Mankind, and in consequence of this Love, as well as of our Love to God, (because he requires these things of us) to do good Offices to, and promote the general Welfare and Happiness of our Fellow-creatures...What Hemphill means by the first Revelation which God made to us by the Light of Nature, is the Knowledge, and our Obligations to the Practice of the Laws of Morality, which are discoverable by the Light of Nature; or by reflecting upon the human Frame, and considering it's natural Propensities, Instincts, and Principles of Action, and the genuine Tendencies of them.

Franklin goes on to describe the proper relationship between reason and revelation and, like Adams above, positioned scripture as secondary revelation, with "reason" or "the light of nature" as primary revelation that God gave to man:

Now, that to promote the Practice of the great Laws of Morality and Virtue both with Respect to God and Man, is the main End and Design of the christian Revelation has been already prov'd from the Revelation itself. And indeed as just now hinted at, it is obvious to the Reason of every thinking Person, that, if God almighty gives a Revelation at all, it must be for this End; nor is the Truth of the christian Revelation, or of any other that ever was made, to be defended upon any other Footing. But quitting these things; if the above Observations be true, then where lies the Absurdity of Hemphill's asserting,

Article I.

That Christianity, [as to it’s most essential and necessary Parts,] is plainly Nothing else, but a second Revelation of God’s Will founded upon the first Revelation, which God made to us by the Light of Nature.

In the following, Franklin clearly noted that revelation must be "reasonable" in order to be true. And the difference between this system and orthodox Christianity makes a difference. Franklin argues for this method in the context of denying original sin and that non-Christians, because of such, deserve eternal damnation and will go there if they die without Christ. Franklin disagrees: "to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon account of the Guilt of another, is unreasonable; and actually to punish him for it, is unjust and cruel." He then writes:

Our Adversaries will perhaps alledge some Passages of the sacred Scriptures to prove this their Opinion; What! will they pretend to prove from Scripture a Notion that is absurd in itself, and has no Foundation in Nature? And if there was such a Text of Scripture, for my own Part, I should not in the least hesitate to say, that it could not be genuine, being so evidently contrary to Reason and the Nature of Things. But is it alledg'd, that there are some Passages in Scripture, which do, at least, insinuate the Notion here contradicted? In answer to this, I observe, that these Passages are intricate and obscure. And granting that I could not explain them after a manner more agreeable to the Nature of God and Reason, than the Maintainers of this monstrous System do yet I could not help thinking that they must be understood in a Sense consistent with them, tho' I could not find it out; and I would ingeniously confess I did not understand them, sooner than admit of a Sense contrary to Reason and to the Nature and Perfections of the Almighty God, and which Sense has no other Tendency than to represent the great Father of Mercy, the beneficent Creator and Preserver of universal Nature, as arbitrary, unjust and cruel; which is contrary to a thousand other Declarations of the same holy Scriptures. If the teaching of this Notion, pursued in its natural Consequences, be not teaching of Demonism, I know not what is.

James Wilson, whom Bradfield quotes, likewise believed the same. He once stated "the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supersede the operations of reason and the moral sense." Indeed, he believed revelation's task was to support reason, not the other way around: "Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance." And yes, Wilson, like Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, and Jefferson, was not a Christian but a "theistic rationalist."

In sum, when the Founders spoke of higher law which no positive law could contradict, they referred to natural law which was discoverable by reason, and not necessarily what's in the Bible. Indeed, only those "reasonable" parts of the Bible were part of such "higher" law which, they believed, formed the organic law of our nation. Thus, the higher law/natural law dynamic of our Founding lends more support to an "Enlightenment" worldview than a "Biblical" one.

There They Go Again:

As with David Barton's phony quotations that refuse to die, Janet Folger seems to think that just because her religious convictions inform her that homosexual acts are immoral, she can wholesale break the 9th Commandment and lie all she wants about homosexuals.

She prefaces her lies with an extremely arrogant assumption that conservative fundamentalists like her "own" the Republican Party and the term "Republican." She writes:

Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If we call the tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?"

The reply: Five.

"No," Lincoln said, "Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

Here's another question: If you call a liberal Democrat a Republican, how many Republican "front-runners" do we have? No, just because you call a Democrat a Republican doesn't make it so. And the "Eleventh Commandment" -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" -- doesn't apply to Democrats with a plastic "R" behind their name.

I've had enough of "conservatives" who try to appear "reasonable" by embracing high name-ID candidates who wouldn't know a conservative Republican value if it bit them in the primary.

She refers, of course, to liberal Democrats in disguise Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

Then she lets us know how she prayed George Bush into office:

On election night 2000, I was being interviewed on the very same station as my "oh so rational" guest. During that interview, the "reality" was that my state of Florida was declared for Al Gore. I vividly remember hanging up the phone and getting on my knees -- asking God to "take the state of Florida from Al Gore and give it to George Bush." He did. "Reality reports" don't intimidate me so much anymore.

Then she lies:

Giuliani told the 1998 RNC summer meeting the way to get elected is to sacrifice "one principle here or one principle there." Sacrifice principles like "the right to life" here, "the right to bear arms there" and give special rights to homosexuals while you're at it. Even more liberal than the Democratic-controlled New York City Council, Giuliani pushed -- for cash and prizes -- for homosexual sex. He then codified the domestic partnership benefits package by granting all city employees tax-funded benefits just for engaging in dangerous homosexual behavior. Mitt Romney wants to subsidize sodomy by rewarding "homosexual (domestic) partners" with taxpayer-funded benefits, as well. Why is this a bad idea? For the same reason we don't hand out the children's book: "Heather's Two Cigarettes" in elementary school. You don't finance and encourage dangerous behavior. But homosexual sex isn't like smoking. Right -- homosexual sex is three times more dangerous than smoking.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal (Jan. 11, 2000) said, "Among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has reduced life expectancy by up to 20 years." And according to the New England Journal of Medicine (Feb. 12, 1998), smoking, on the other hand, reduces your life expectancy "7.3 years for men and 6.0 years for women." And that doesn't even touch the other life-threatening risks.

As reported in Jeffrey Satinover's "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," other studies reveal that homosexuals experience:

A 25 to 30-year decrease in life expectancy

Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease -- infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer

Inevitably fatal immune disease, including associated cancers

Frequently fatal rectal cancer

Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases

A much higher than usual incidence of suicide

Not to mention hepatitis A, B, and C, gonorrhea, syphilis, Gay Bowel Syndrome, anal cancer, anal and genital warts, and domestic violence, just to name a few.

The "The Canadian Medical Association Journal" figure actually derives from one study done by the International Journal of Epidemiology in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s during the worst time in the epidemic, before the newer treatments were introduced. The authors, legitimate researchers, subsequently noted that the figures are no longer current, and never claimed they could be extrapolated to apply to gay or bisexual men as a whole, just those living in one urban enclave. They wrote SIX YEARS AGO:

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday.

But thankfully (and apparently against the wishes of the likes of Ms. Folger), the pattern didn't continue:

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.4

In otherwords, the "threefold decrease in mortality" renders the originial statistic invalid, hence a lie to repeat it in 2007 as though it were true.

The other source of Ms. Folger's claims, Jeffrey Satinover's "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," -- the 25 to 30 year decrease -- were derived from the research of one Paul Cameron, a complete fraud expelled from every reputable professional organization, and whose work has been debunked for about a decade now. See here, here, here, and here.

Yet Cameron and his son are still up to their antics.

Christian Newswire

March 23, 2007

PHILADELPHIA: According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior. Analyzing a 2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention that 2% of 18- 44 year olds, 1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered themselves homosexual. Thus homosexual activity was much more common among younger adults.

What happened to the older homosexuals? "Some may have ceased to be sexually active," said Paul Cameron, "or they may have died. Recent reports from Scandinavia indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20+ years shorter than that of heterosexuals."

Going to Paul Cameron for the newest "findings" on homosexuality is like going to David Irving for the newest "findings" on Holocaust research.

As it was once said, "there they go again." When will these people ever learn?

Interviewing Riley Martin:

On Wednesday, I am scheduled to interview Sirius Satellite Radio Show Host and frequent Howard Stern guest, Riley Martin, which will broadcast later on Cable Channel 26 available in Mercer County, NJ.

If you have any ideas for questions (currently, I'm reading his book) email them or comment here. Only respectful questions please. If you were interviewing him face-to-face I think you'd ask only respectful questions too.

I've got to put on my "Charlie Rose/William F. Buckley" hat for this one.

Thanks to Prof. Paul Horwitz:

For kindly responding to my comments on the Constitution's "No Religious Test" Clause. Here are some excerpts from his post:

History: First, Jon Rowe, who had many valuable comments, asks a basic question: What was Rhode Island's religious test during the Founding era? Let me quote from Gerard Bradley, whose article I cited in my first post: "Rhode Island, as in many church-state matters, was a special case: the Protestant monopoly there flowed from an exclusion of Catholics and Jews from citizenship, and not, precisely, from political office." Mr. Rowe also makes a series of broader points, arguing that we should draw some significance for our historical reading from the assertion that a number of key framers were not orthodox Christians. I don't dispute that assertion, but would say two things. First, those admittedly central individuals are not the only or even the authoritative figures here. In thinking about the historical understanding of the Clause, their views must be counted alongside the views of those whom they sought to convince — the other framers and the ratifiers of the Constitution. I have no algorithm to apply here in weighting their respective views; but my holistic reading of the history surrounding the debate over the Clause suggests to me, at least, that we should not read the Clause too broadly in light of these standout examples, especially in light of the real historical evils the Clause appeared fairly clearly to address. Second, as Mr. Rowe notes, although unorthodox, those key framers, and certainly many other framers, did not think virtue and character were irrelevant to political office; for most framers and ratifiers, religion (however broadly defined) was certainly a vital aspect of one's character.

[...]

To say that religion may sometimes be relevant to public discussion and decision on nominees and other matters, and that the Religious Test Clause doesn't bar the use of religion in this way, although it does bar certain formal barriers to public office, is of course not the end of the story. We are then left to deliberate together about how and when (if ever) religion should enter into the public debate, or into the decisions of public officials. Although I clearly disagree with those who have answered "never," I also think we can invoke religion more or less wisely and carefully, and have said something about what that might entail. Jon Rowe concluded his comment yesterday by saying, "Personally, I'd rather live under a system of 'etiquette' where one's religion or lack thereof — whether one be a fundamentalist Christian or an atheist — is viewed as simply not related to one's fitness for public office." Taken at that broad level of generality, I can sympathize; but it is a short step from that principle to a public square that is denuded of useful, meaningful discussion. It also removes, one should acknowledge, much of what might be shallow and provocative sniping and religious bigotry — but that language, too, is the price of open debate, and knowing of that risk should remind us all the more of our own responsibility to enter into these discussions, and use both our votes and our voices, with some kind of sense of underlying principle and integrity that I've simply labeled "constitutional etiquette." Better, in my view, to have a system of etiquette where we can openly acknowledge and discuss religion, while remembering that it can never be a formal bar to public office — and in which we can add our own voices to the debate in pointing out that the mere labels "fundamentalist Christian" or "atheist" (or "Muslim") are far from descriptively complete, that they say very little about how particular individuals will carry out their offices, and that on such a broad level, they may not even say much about character.

As the always valuable Mr. Rowe commented, my reading of the Religious Test Clause can cut both ways politically. More on that tomorrow, with some concluding remarks on the differing reactions I've received to this article, and what they may suggest.

His normative point on "constitutional etiquette" is, admittedly, a difficult issue. As I said, I want to live in a world where one's religion is viewed as irrelevant to one's being "fit" for public office. Indeed, James Dobson's recent comment that he didn't think Fred Thompson was a "Christian" and its implication that this makes Thompson unfit or less fit for public office, I found offensive. Yet, if a Presidential candidate was discovered to be a "Young-Earth-Creationist" who explicitly stated his belief in the literal six thousand year age of the Earth led him to reject evolution -- I seriously doubt my friends at Scienceblogs would deem that irrelevant to his qualifications for public office.

One of the Worst Moments in Rush Limbaugh's Life:



Amusing!

Bad Article by Farah on Separation:

In yesterday's WND Joe Farah failed in an attempt to "fisk" Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. for claiming, "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state." Farah responded:

When I hear statements like this, from people who have been around the block a time or two, I have to wonder if the man is knowingly lying in support of his perverted beliefs or whether he is hopelessly ignorant of history.

Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported -- strongly or not -- the notion of separation of church and state. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.

Such a strong statement. He must really be confident that the historical record supports his side. The rest I'm going to have to handle line by line.

If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter -- and only in this letter -- that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church and state."

The only problem with this is that it isn't true. First, Jefferson used that phrase or similar ones other times. In fact, here he is using it in a letter to Attorney General Levi Lincoln discussing his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings and thanksgivings, as my predecessors did.

Or see Jefferson's letter to Moses Robinson from Jefferson, March 23, 1801:

The eastern states will be the last to come over, on account of the dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of union between church and state. and began to indulge reveries which can never be realized in the present state of science.

Madison too often pushed the concept of "separation," as documented on this website. Here are just a few of his quotations:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820)

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822)

Farah's article gets worse. More misstatements of fact:

Yet, throughout Jefferson's long life in politics and government, we see a man who, by today's standards, would be viewed by people like Stark as a card-carrying member of the religious right.

Jefferson not only went to church as president. He did so inside the House of Representatives. That's right. This man who supposedly believed in an eternal wall of separation between church and state regularly attended church services inside Congress. The church services were presided over by every Protestant denomination. And this was really Jefferson's idea of separation of church and state -- meaning no establishment of a state sect.

It would never have occurred to President Jefferson that America was not a "Christian nation." Jefferson was not nearly so hostile to religion, or, more specifically, Christianity, in government than those who zero in on the Danbury letter as evidence the founders were secular jihadists like the American Civil Liberties Union or Pete Stark.

Jefferson viewed as a carrying member of the religious right? This is a man who like Stark described himself as a "Unitarian" and was such a fervent anti-Trinitarian that he compared the Trinity to a three-headed monster and once termed it a "metaphysical insanity." Further, he rejected every single tenet of the creeds of orthodox Christianity. This would go over with today's religious right?

Whether Jefferson thought America was a "Christian nation," he once said that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Finally Farah declares:

On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered "A National Prayer for Peace," which petitioned "Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."

Again, the only problem with this is that it isn't true. Jefferson never issued national days of prayer and that was the subject of his letter to the Danbury Baptists where he used the phrase "separation of church and state." He also wrote to other so concerned pious figures and Christian groups of the era explaining why, unlike Washington and Adams, he categorically refused to issue such prayers.

This website further sheds light on the false national prayer quotation:

March 4, 1805 was the date of Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address and there is no such prayer included in it. This "prayer" shows up on a number of religious web sites on line, and is either attributed to Thomas Jefferson, with no other information or as above "Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805". Nowhere is there a complete valid cite given.

So when Farah ends his article with, "So, where's the evidence for this notion? What does Pete Stark know that I don't know?" Hopefully now, Mr. Farah you are better informed. Please issue a retraction for your errors or else we can accuse you of being either "lying" or "delusional."

Why Did the Founders Support "No Religious Tests" in the Constitution?

Paul Horwitz, an Article VI -- "no religious test" -- scholar, has his first post on Volokh today.

Particularly, I'm interested in why the Founders chose to ban such tests federally, and not at the state level. One reason why the original Constitution didn't ban such tests at the state level is because, as with slavery, even if many or most of the Framers wanted to do this, the states probably wouldn't have ratified the Constitution if it meant abolishing their religious tests which most states at that time had.

Here is how Horwitz in today's post deals with what the Framers were concerned with in the context of state v. federal religious tests:

We might read that fact as having purely jurisdictional significance: the ratifiers were willing to see such a test at the federal level but not the state level. But I think it also adds to our understanding of the federal clause. It makes us understand just how revolutionary the federal clause was (a point several commenters have already recognized), and that may lead us to favor a somewhat narrow meaning for the clause. We might be more inclined to read the Clause as focusing more specifically and narrowly on the kinds of historical evils it was aimed against....

Earlier in the post Horowitz specified what that "historical evil" primarily was:

[T]he framers and ratifiers of the Religious Test Clause had a specific historical evil in mind when they crafted the Clause: that set of formally imposed oaths and very closely allied practices that were used to restrict office-holders in England to those willing to follow the doctrines of the established church. Second, we must consider the enforcement device by which these tests were imposed: the swearing of an oath, a device by which an individual risked his eternal soul or earthly honor should he swear falsely. The importance with which the members of the founding generation took oaths and the importance of their honor cannot be overstated.

While this much may be true, I think it misses a big reason why the key Founders may have wanted to abolish religious tests federally: Self-interest. They couldn't pass most of the religious tests that existed at the state level. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin all disbelieved in the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and Plenary Inspiration of Scripture. And Madison too was a secret closet theological unitarian. As I've written and published, I think Washington was as well, but given his reticence to speak on matters of his personal faith, the historical record is in dispute in this regard (though I think it points strongly towards his heterodoxy). Hamilton didn't convert to orthodox Christianity till the end of his life after he did his work "Founding" the nation. And James Wilson and G. Morris likewise were "theistic rationalists"/"unitarians" like Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, et al.

While it may have been "unthinkable" to electable elect a Catholic or a Jew to federal public office back then and whereas most of the above listed Founders had some kind of nominal affiliation with a Church which professed orthodoxy, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison all were elected President. The fact that these unitarian "infidels" didn't have to take an oath to Trinitarian Christianity or belief in the Divine Inspiration of the entirety of Scripture made their rise to office much easier. Perhaps they had that in mind when writing Article VI?

Franklin, though never elected President, was acting governor of PA and PA's Constitution, which he helped write had a religious test (I think not for the executive but for the representatives) which Franklin himself couldn't pass! Indeed, he wrote in a private letter (which I've blogged about here) explaining why he was against the religious test, in part because he couldn't pass it! (It required belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible and Franklin noted that parts of the Bible were impossible, in his opinion, to have been given by Divine Inspiration.) Intuitively, Franklin as a public official in PA, helped rid the offending clause.

If Franklin, Washington et al. were to construct a national religious test, it would be much simpler than what we see with most of them at the state level; it would require simple belief in a governing Providence who will ultimately reward good and punish evil; this is something all of them, at the very least, believed in. But they didn't even do that.

Finally, I think Horwitz should also consider what Gary North has written regarding oaths and covenanting. Most of the states, North argues, put forth religious tests in the context of making a covenant with the Trinitarian God of Christianity. The federal Constitution does not do this. And, if the leading Framers were not Trinitarians, they understandably would not want to covenant with the Trinitarian God of Christianity.

Horwitz seems more concerned with determining exactly what the clause forbids and dismisses such search for "expressive" meaning (in other words, regardless of what the clause exactly forbids, what does such a clause say about who we are/ought to be as a nation?). Lawrence Tribe, for instance, as quoted by Horwitz noted, the framers and ratifiers were moving to "prioritize[] the secular over the religious in the [federal] public realm." Kramnick and Moore, two Cornell scholars made a similar point in their book, The Godless Constitution. Gary North more or less agrees with Tribe and Kramnick and Moore that whatever the clause exactly forbids, it did make a meaningful, indeed revolutionary expressive statement about the federal government of the United States, who we are/ought to be as a "nation" and a "people." His point was that by purposefully not covenanting with the Trinitarian God of the Bible in the form of an oath to Him, and replacing such covenant with a "no religious test" clause, we are covenant breakers, and not a "Christian Nation." Even if courts in the 20th Century made technically "wrong" decisions secularizing the public square through the Establishment Clause, they did so, North argues, in large part because of the break with the orthodox Christian worldview the Founders set forth in Article VI's "no religious test" clause.

Such decisions, I suppose North would argue, were not within the "letter" but certainly were within the "spirit" of the Constitution.

Jefferson Calls the Trinity a Three-Headed Monster:

From his letter to Rev. James Smith, December 8, 1822:

No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs....In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.

The entire thing is worth a read.

Sunday Music:

"It Makes No Difference" by The Band, sung by the late Rick Danko. I'm glad I got to see him about a decade ago with The Band before he passed away. It was at Trenton's Waterfront Park, which is about ten minutes away from where I live. They were joined by none other than Stephen Segal who played a number of songs with them (I'm serious).

Article VI Scholar Blogs on Volokh:

Article VI's "no religious test" clause of the US Constitution is much neglected with a dearth of scholarship on its proper meaning. Arguably this clause was a revolutionary (for its time) statement of religious neutrality. Why is this clause so ignored?

Prof. Paul Horwitz, from Southwestern Law School will be blogging this coming week on Volokh. And Eugene already posted Horwitz's main article on the subject.

Horwitz argues for a very strict reading of this clause. When I first read his paper, it struck me as a politically conservative reading of Article VI. However, as with the Free Exercise Clause, narrow or broad readings cut both ways politically. EMPLOYMENT DIV., ORE. DEPT. OF HUMAN RES. v. SMITH seemed on its surface a narrow "conservative" reading of the Free Exercise Clause; indeed it was written by Justice Scalia. However, many religious conservatives vehemently disagree with Justice Scalia's decision in the Smith case. While some secular liberals like Marci Hamilton enthusiastically support it.

In doing research on this issue I found this article by Manuel Miranda, a conservative, arguing contra Horwitz, for a broad reading of Article VI. Horwitz's interpretation is much closer to Cathy Young's or E.J Dionne's in the article.

In Monday's Boston Globe, columnist Cathy Young, also a contributing editor of the libertarian Reason magazine, concludes: "A candidate's or nominee's ideology should be fair game whether it's religious or secular in nature, whether it's rooted in conservative Catholicism or liberal feminism."

More interesting is how Ms. Young gets to this conclusion. While applauding John F. Kennedy's milestone election as the first Catholic president, Ms. Young recites Article VI, but she conflates the religious test clause with the provision that officeholders "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." She interprets this to mean that "an officeholder could not be required to take an oath or perform a religious ritual affirming his allegiance to a particular religion or denomination, or even a general belief in God."

[...]

In Wednesday's Washington Post ("Why It's Right to Ask About Roberts's Faith"), columnist E.J. Dionne asks: "Is it wrong to question Judge John Roberts on how his Catholic faith might affect his decisions as a Supreme Court justice? Or is it wrong not to? . . . Why is it wrong to ask him to share his reflections with the public?" It would be helpful, Mr. Dionne concludes, "if Roberts gave an account of how (and whether) his religious convictions would affect his decisions as a justice."

[...]

Journalists believe that the religious test clause guards against simple discrimination against Catholics or Jews or any other particular denominations. It does not. It prohibits a probe of what the potential officeholder believes derived of his religious convictions. [my emphasis] It is not about what he lists on a questionnaire under religion, as if it were like race or sex. That is why the liberal press has mocked the concern raised by conservatives that the abortion litmus test and other lines of inquiry are a constitutionally prohibited religious test.

In other words, according to Horwitz, Article VI really does mean only that "an officeholder could not be required to take an oath or perform a religious ritual affirming his allegiance to a particular religion or denomination, or even a general belief in God." And if a liberal Congress wants to probe into Justice Roberts' religious beliefs and vote him down because he, as a conservative Catholic, may be so influenced on the Court, Art. VI provides no constitutional barrier to their so doing.

Yet, such a reading cuts both ways. If a liberal President appointed an insufficiently religious Supreme Court nominee, a religiously conservative Senate could so inquire and refuse to confirm the nominee on that basis.

The Nature of Hell:

If anyone is so interested, I debated the nature of Hell on this post on World Mag's blog. I had two basic claims. The first is, because all men's sins are finite, it would be fundamentally unjust to impose eternal punishment on anyone even Hitler or whatever evil incarnate you may imagine. Imposing it on the mass of humanity would be the worst case of cosmic injustice or the punishment not fitting the crime. Even in the Christian religion, there are alternatives. For instance, the Catholic notion of purgatory -- where individuals are temporarily punished -- purged of their sin -- and then eventually redeemed. (Our key Founding Fathers -- the "theistic rationalists" -- believed in something similar. Though, unlike Catholics who elevate works more so than orthodox Protestants do, the theistic rationalists believed that works were more important than faith in determining salvation. They argued God cares more about what you did than what you believed.) The notion of temporary, proportionate punishment, eventual salvation is far more "rational" and "just" than eternal damnation. But both orthodox Christians and atheists would instruct me that just because something sounds nicer doesn't make it true.

John Adams said the following, in his letter to Jefferson dated Sept. 14, 1813, one of the many times he denied eternal damnation in his writings:

God has infinite wisdom, goodness, and power; he created the universe; his duration is eternal ... his presence is as extensive as space. It is said that he created this speck of dirt -- the earth -- and the human species for his glory. And then, the orthodox theologians say, he chose to make nine-tenths of our species miserable forever, for his greater glory.

Now, my friend Jefferson, can prophecies and miracles convince you or me that infinite benevolence, wisdom, and power created and preserves for a time, innumerable millions, only in the end to make them miserable forever, and for no other purpose than his own glory? Wretch! What is glory? Is he ambitious? Does he want promotion? Is he vain, tickled with adulation, exulting and triumphing in his power and the sweetness of his vengeance? Pardon me, my Maker, for these awful questions...but I believe no such thing. My adoration for the author of the universe is too profound, too sincere. The love of God and his creation -- delight, joy, triumph, exultation in my own existence -- are my religion. The Calvinist, the Athanasian divines ... will say I am no Christian. I say they are no Christians, and there the account is balanced.

Keep in mind that Adams, though he fervently worshipped God as he understood Him, to our best knowledge died a fervent unitarian, which according to the "orthodox theologians" would make him in Hell right now.

The second claim I made on the discussion thread was that the first claim -- that eternal damnation is fundamentally unjust in all circumstances -- depends on what Hell is really like. In studying the issue, I've noted that orthodox Christians don't at all agree on this matter. Some have said it's eternal separation from God (the most common claim I'm now hearing); some say no, Hell is torment because God is there, not because He's absent. Some say Hell is just annihilation of the soul -- the very same "grave" that atheists believe we all go to. I've seen one theologian argue for temporary punishment and then annihilation.

The "Hell is separation from God" crowd often makes what sounds to me like Arminan arguments for Hell, that this is place where people choose to go because they reject God. Or CS Lewis' famous line about the doors of Hell being locked from the inside.

One fundamentalist minister, Rev. John Rankin, with whom we at Positive Liberty debated in the past made an argument for Hell that actually caused me to rethink the fundamental unjust nature of it: that Hell is place where people voluntarily choose because they are happier not in God's presence. Though Christians deny that non-believers have true happiness, there are plenty non-believers here on earth who genuinely seem to claim happiness. If eternal separation from God means people can basically continue such separation that they are happy with here on Earth, the justness of such a concept, and why people would voluntarily choose to be in such a place, seems more understandable. If in Hell, we can be with our fellow unsaved loved ones, play pool with our buddies, listen to Howard Stern, philosophize with Jefferson and Voltaire, make music with Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon and Frank Zappa, drink, tell dirty jokes, continue to have the "unbiblical" sex that we enjoy here, etc. etc., well it sounds like Hell wouldn't be such a bad place to be for many folks (perhaps most folks would prefer such a place).

Most of the folks on the blog, even those who initially claimed that Hell wasn't eternal torture, just eternal separation from God -- balked at this notion. One person went so far to argue that because everything "good" comes from God, including our five sense and our ability to enjoy life using those senses, eternity in Hell means not just eternity alone, but devoid of all five senses. Sort of like God sentencing people to be Helen Keller for eternity but instead of the loss of two sense, we lose all five. I couldn't imagine a worse form of torture. And anyone who would impose this on a single soul, much less the majority of the human race for eternity is a cosmic sadist who would impose punishments which exceed the crime in the grossest way. (As I noted it would be the worst form of cosmic injustice, ever.) You don't chop someone's foot off for speeding; you give them a reasonable ticket. Hence, this can't possibly be true. Even were I an orthodox Christian believer who ended up in Heaven, were masses souls eternally tortured, I would remonstrate with God everytime I saw Him and beg for the eventual release of all souls from Hell.

And if Hell is a place where the doors are locked from the inside no one would choose to live in eternity like Helen Keller but devoid of all five senses, instead of two.

My own beliefs, more specifically: Who knows what comes next (though, the mere existence of time/space/matter and energy makes the notion of a supernatural creation of existence just as rational a belief as a self-existing universe, with no original creation)? But if there is something, I can't imagine it being unjust or unfair. Cosmic justice can't be achieved here on Earth. But if there is a hereafter, that's where such a concept comes into play. Asking me to believe the mass of humanity -- all the people who die not believing in the "right" religion -- are in Hell tortured in eternally misery -- would be like asking me to believe those 19 highjackers who crashed into the World Trade Center possessed the right theological answers. It's something to which I've closed my mind. I'm not buying it, ever.

Gays and the Civil Rights Movement:

I've made this point a number of times through the years. One of the talking points of the gay rights movement is to invoke the civil rights movement, to which the other side responds (obviously) gay is not black, sexual orientation is not race. See for instance this thread on WorldMagBlog; as one commenter put it:

Comparing the struggle of gay people to what happened in the civil rights movement indicates that we can tell who is gay by their outward appearance. THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS ABOUT CLEARLY VISIBALE DIFFERENCES. I do not know what brain cramp homosexuals are suffering from that they cannot see this clear truth.

Richard Posner, certainly not a man known for suffering from "brain cramps," had a passage in Sex & Reason which well puts the issue into perspective:

[G]iven Title VII and cognate laws, is there any reason to exclude homosexuals from a protected category that already includes not only racial, religious, and ethnic groups but also women, the physically and mentally handicapped, all workers aged 40 and older, and in some cases, even young healthy male WASPS? Is there less, or less harmful, or less irrational discrimination against homosexuals than against the members of any of these other groups? The answer is no.

-- Sex and Reason, p. 323

Jefferson on the Presbyterian Clergy and Paul:

The Presbyterian clergy are loudest; the most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical and ambitious ; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not find in his Euclid the proposition which has demonstrated that three are one and one is three, nor subscribe to that of Calvin, that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to Calvinistic Creed. They pant to re-establish, by law, that holy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion.

Ouch! That was from his letter to William Short, April 13, 1820. The entire letter is worth a read. Jefferson discusses how Jesus' "biographers" had corrupted his original message, Paul being the first "corruptor" of Jesus' messages. In one letter Jefferson talked about separating the "diamonds" from the "dunghill" in order to extract the truth from the corruption in the Bible. Here, he uses the phrase separating "the gold from the dross."

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man.

Double ouch.

For Cathy Seipp:

http://cathyseipp.journalspace.com/



'nuff sung.

How Not to Act When Getting Pulled Over:

I tell my community college students (some of whom sometimes have problems with the cops), the smartest thing you can do when you are pulled over by the police is act as polite and cooperative as you can imagine. Drop the attitude. Call him "sir" (or "maam") and "officer" and act as benign as possible (although, be smart; you do have the constitutional right to remain silent and you don't have to spill your guts; you can keep your mouth shut). Doesn't mean the police are always right; often they are wrong and deserved to be vigorously challenged. But there is a time and place for everything. And the time to fight with the cops is in court, not when they are pulling you over. Being polite and cooperative -- as opposed to having the attitude -- often will get you out of a ticket and is worth it just for that. Even if you get the ticket, at the very least you won't get punched, billy-clubbed, tasered, or worse.



The woman was under the apparently mistaken assumption that cops aren't allowed to radar people when they are driving and thought, since the cop is in the wrong, I don't have to cooperate. There are a number of urban myths about policing -- the most famous one I've heard is that undercover cops must let you know they are undercover if you asked them. Even if these were the case, you bring that up in court and see what the judge/ the law has to say.

The War over America's "Christian Heritage":

Here are a few recent articles which illustrate the controversy. First one from Jerry Falwell. He begins by noting Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which begins:

"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens ... are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion. ..."

Note though while the Statute was theistic in its premises, its content was neither "Christian," nor "Biblical," so this is hardly evidence that "America was founded on Christian principles" -- the thesis of Falwell's article. Jefferson's VA Statute perfectly illustrates how America's Founding political order had theistic but not necessarily Biblical or Christian premises.

Falwell also quotes from John Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, and John Hancock, all of whom were orthodox Christians (though Rush eventually converted to Universalism). While no doubt these men were important, they weren't the "key Founders" -- the ones whom we think of when we mention the words "Founding Fathers" -- the men on our currency. They -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and some others -- weren't orthodox Christians; they were the ones who came up with the ideas upon which America was Founded; and those ideas did not come primarily from the Bible or the Christian Religion. Not to downplay the importance of the others; Witherspoon, for instance, was extremely important in educating some Founders like Madison and otherwise arguing for Revolution. However, Witherspoon's arguments for the Revolution came largely from Locke and the Enlightenment, not the Bible.

The day before Falwell's article, WND featured an article from Doug Phillips about the 400th birthday at Jamestown in 1607. While he decries modern "revisionism" about the history of that colony, his article engages in precisely such revisionism, from the other side:

The Jamestown settlers gave the Holy Scriptures a permanent home in America. This is perhaps the most enduring legacy of Jamestown. The coming of the Bible to America fundamentally changed the history of the North American continent. It was the Bible that communicated the hope of personal redemption and the basis for stable civilization.

This is one reason why Jamestown would become the first permanent settlement to establish a legal system based directly on the moral law of God and the applicable principles found in the case laws of Holy Scripture. This Christian "common law" was later incorporated by direct reference into our United States Constitution. Jamestown also gave us our first experiment in republican representative government, a model that finds its origins in the Hebrew Republic of the Old Testament, and was formally adopted by the Founding Fathers of a later generation.

While the US Constitution does say something about the common law, it says nothing about the "Christian" common law, (or God, Jesus or the Christian Religion itself, except perhaps in the customary way of stating the date), and Jefferson believed "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." Further, the Hebrews didn't have a "Republic." Nor did our Founding Fathers think they were implementing a constitutional system that derived from the Old Testament Hebrews. I challenge someone to show me one place in the Declaration, Constitution or Federalist Papers where they claimed this.

There was a sermon from the Founding era from one Reverend Samuel Langdon which claimed something along these lines. But that doesn't mean his sermon was sound. In fact, Langdon's sermon was a piece of Whig-propaganda which radically reimagined the history of the Ancient Israelites. Scripture warns against either adding to or removing from "God's Word." This is exactly what folks do when they claim the Hebrews had a "Republic" or when they otherwise try to "read in" extra-Biblical Founding-era ideas to the Bible's text to try to credit "Christianity" or "Biblical principles" for the ideas upon which we declared independence or constructed the Constitution.

Christian nationalists, in their historical revisionism, ultimately invariably refuse to distinguish between the old colonial orders which were founded according to one set of ideological principles and the Founding from 1776-1789, the ideas of the latter which, in many ways, dramatically broke with the ideas of the former. There was of course, some overlap in ideas between the two eras and the Founding Fathers retained what they thought "rational" from the earlier era.

However, on religion and government, some key difference existed which folks like Jerry Falwell or Doug Phillips ignore to their peril. Frederick Clarkson's article on this very controversy nicely shows how the differences made a difference. Indeed, he quotes from Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" which passage discusses everything wrong with the way the early colonies dealt with religion and government:

The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren...

The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets.

If no capital execution took place here, as did in New-England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature, as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us. The Anglicans retained full possession of the country for about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and... two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. The laws indeed were still oppressive on them, but the spirit of the one party had subsided into moderation, and of the other had risen to a degree of determination which commanded respect.4

Clarkson also deals with, more specifically, how Jamestown dealt with religion and government:

In other words, Jamestown was to be a bastion of the Anglican Church, the established faith of England. The local government was to enforce religious conformity, not religious freedom. According to Leo Pfeffer's Church, State and Freedom, the leaders of the Virginia settlement wasted no time in carrying out that edict. Governor Thomas Dale in 1612 mandated "Lawes Divine, Moral and Martial" that decreed the death penalty for those who "speak impiously of the Trinity... or against the known articles of the Christian faith."

Those who cursed would have a bodkin (needle) "thrust through the tongue," and all immigrants to the new land were to report to the Anglican minister for "examination in the faith." Anyone who refused faced a daily whipping "until he makes acknowledgement."2

Consider Jefferson and Adams -- two fervent theological unitarians -- and their correspondence about which I've longed blogged. Jefferson repeatedly brutally savaged the Trinity, once calling it a "metaphysical insanity"; Adams claimed that even if he were on Mt. Sinai with Moses and God had revealed the Trinity to him there, Adams still wouldn't believe it because man's reason dictates 1+1+1 = 3, not 1. Both of them wrote these things in private, because had these thoughts been made public their reputations would have been greatly damaged (Jefferson's already was damaged for some of the things he wrote about in "Notes"). But had those letters been made public in Jamestown in the earlier colonial era, they could have been executed like Servetus, whom Calvin helped to have executed for publicly criticizing the Trinity in Geneva.

No, according to the ideas that Jefferson, Adams and company gave us, the rights of conscience were unalienable and if a man wanted to, in contravention to Scripture, openly worship no God, twenty Gods or deny the Trinity, he had the absolute right to do so. That's one key difference between the ideas of America's national Founding and the colonial foundings of Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. And what a profound difference it was.