Boston Defends Everson:

Here is Rob Boston from American's United defending the Everson case, which has become a bugaboo of the religious right. Boston takes on both the clownish religious right figures like David Barton but also the more serious legal scholars who criticize Everson like Philip Hamburger and Daniel Dreisbach.

Nevertheless, several right-wing scholars have accused Black of being anti-Catholic, among them Dreisbach, Philip Hamburger and even Jay Sekulow, TV preacher Pat Robertson's top lawyer.

In his 2006 book Witnessing Their Faith: Religious Influence on Supreme Court Justices and Their Opinions, Sekulow notes that Black grew disillusioned with the Baptist faith he was raised in and in Washington attended a Unitarian church. Sekulow hastens to add, "While many of the theological doctrines and practices of the Baptist denomination did not appeal to Black, their separationist and anti-Catholic declarations found a deep resonance within him."

Sekulow's source for this is the writings of Hamburger, who accuses Black of anti-Catholicism as a way to impugn the separation concept. Hamburger's magnum opus is the misnamed Separation of Church and State, a 492-page screed against that principle. The reasoning is somewhat circular: Black was an anti-Catholic bigot. Therefore, Black supported the separation of church and state. Therefore, support for separation of church and state means you are an anti-Catholic bigot.

Yet the question of Black's alleged anti-Catholicism is not so simple. Some Black biographers, primarily Steve Suitts in his book Hugo Black of Alabama, defend Black against the charge.

I've reviewed the first half of Hamburger's book here where I analyze how he treats the notion of "separation of church and state" in the Founding era. I don't address the second half of his book where Hamburger deals with Everson. Hamburger is a brilliant scholar who has done impressive research on the matter; so I take his theories with a high degree of charity and deference. I will say that the weakest part of his book is his analysis -- how he puts the facts, which he meticulously researches, together. Arguably the notion that Hugo Black gave us Everson because he was a Klan imbibed anti-Catholic bigot is a smear against Black.

Still, there is a serious scholarly case to be made that Everson errs simply because the Establishment Clause is not incorporable, and that much of what Hamburger puts forth regarding whether 18th Century dissenters believed in "separation" or whether Black et al. were anti-Catholic bigots, is entirely besides the point. For a work that makes the argument against the Establishment Clause's incorporation without stepping into these extraneous matters, see Vincent Phillip Munoz's The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Impossibility of Its Incorporation, 8 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 585-639 (2006).

Breaking the Ninth:

Independent Gay Forum's David Link is a saint for agreeing to go through this four part debate with one Mary Joe Anderson. In a nutshell 1) she writes for WorldNutDaily; 2) she argues that homosexuals don't exist, 3) she relies on Paul Cameron's phony social science, and 4) touts the mythical "gay-bowel syndrome." Indeed, she brags on her website that she only used "natural law, science, human custom, etc." instead of "religious arguments." It would have been better for her to simply assert she doesn't believe in same-sex marriage or the morality of homosexual behavior because her church or her religious beliefs say so than spread lies in the form of statistics about a social group. How very "Christian" of her to break the Ninth Commandment in this debate.

Washington on the Afterlife:

More clues on George Washington's belief in religious orthodoxy (or lack thereof): From his letter to ANNIS BOUDINOT STOCKTON, August 31, 1788:

"But, with Cicero in speaking respecting his belief of the immortality of the Soul, I will say, if I am in a grateful delusion, it is an innocent one, and I am willing to remain under its influence."

On the context of the passage, (check it for yourself, that was an excerpt and the entire thing is linked above) that line was an aside inserted into a letter on a different subject where he defends stoicism over epicureanism. Also, his prose here seems a bit "flirtatious" (GW was known to be a flirt with the ladies) and the subject of "sex" (i.e. "gender") often comes up.

But, on what he actually says about the afterlife, it seems not to fit with the notion that Washington was a Christian. First, orthodox Christians in general and his Anglican/Episcopal Church in particular have formed definite opinions on the matter. It would seem that were he a Christian/doctrinaire Anglican, he would cite his Church or the Bible as authority on the matter. But he doesn't. He says he believes in the Immortality of the soul after Cicero, a figure from the Pagan Ancient Rome. Indeed, out of all of the key Founders, Washington seemed the most enamored with pagan classical antiquity; as alluded to above, he adhered to a "Stoic" philosophy, which has its roots in Greco-Romanism. His favorite character from antiquity was the Roman Senator, Cato the Younger (a man who did a very un-Christian thing -- commit suicide as a matter of principle) and had Addison's play enacted for his soldiers in Valley Forge to inspire them.

Finally, I've also read thoughts from Adams and other key Founders where they suggest, though they believe in the afterlife, there is a possibility that they are wrong; but if such is a "delusion," it is a harmless one, and one that makes life easier to take.

David Barton still can't get his Facts Straight:

Even when they seem to go against his "Christian Nation" thesis. A few weeks ago David Barton tried to "correct" the assertion that Keith Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress, that in fact John Randolph from the Founding era, was a Muslim. And unfortunately, a reputable journalist has picked up on Barton's assertion. John McCaslin writes:

Contrary to pronouncements by pundits and publications alike, freshman Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, is not the first Muslim elected to Congress.

Writing for the Christian Worldview Network, historian David Barton says that "as is often the case with the mainstream media, they were wrong" about the 43-year-old Democrat, who created a storm of controversy by taking his oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible.

Rather, the first Muslim to serve in Congress was John Randolph of Virginia, elected off and on from 1799 to 1834. During the time there "were numerous Muslims living in America," says Mr. Barton, so many that the first Koran was published and sold here by 1806.

"Significantly, Francis Scott Key, author of the 'Star Spangled Banner,' befriended Randolph and faithfully shared Christ with him. Randolph eventually converted from Islam to Christianity," Mr. Barton writes.

"Interestingly, during the founding era, like today, there was great concern over the possibility of a Muslim being elected to Congress. That concern was heightened by the fact that at that time, like now, America was involved in a war on terror against Islamic terrorists," the historian notes.

"That war, called the Barbary Powers War, lasted 32 years, involved six years of active overseas warfare against Muslim terrorists, and spanned four U.S. presidencies: those of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison."

Before I heard this claim about Randolph, I had no idea of its truth and still haven't meticulously researched the issue. If Randolph were a Muslim, arguably this cuts against Barton's "Christian Nation" thesis, showing more religious diversity in the Founding era. But still, with any assertion Barton makes, check the primary sources first before you cite him as he is not a credible authority on the matter. In fact, he is often touted as an "historian." He is no more a historian than I am. He has a BA in "Christian Education" from Oral Roberts University.

I realize that Wiki is not the most credible authority either (arguably it's more credible than Barton), but here is what it has to say on Randoph's Muslim faith:

Historians reject assertions that Randolph at any time was a Muslim (the only evidence is one letter in 1818 where said that as a youth he rooted for the Muslim side when reading about the Crusades.)

While as a child Randolph (upset at what he saw as hypocrisy among those calling themselves Christians around him) read stories about the Crusades and rooted for the Muslims, there is no evidence that he ever owned or read a Qur'an, pronounced the shahadah, said daily prayers facing Mecca, or fasted in Ramadan (which are the basic requirements of a convert).[2] Randolph was raised and remained within the Episcopalian Church,[3] his "conversion" was not from one faith to another, but one of a depth of belief.

Ben Franklin on PA's Religious Test:

Pennsylvania's religious test in its Constitution written in 1776 illustrates why I am suspicious of viewing the Founding (as it regards religion, but other important issues as well) through the lens of federalism. The original Constitution was extremely limited in power and left the states lots of room to engage in practices entirely contrary to Founding ideals -- the worst practice, of course, being slavery.

The Founders separated Church and State at the federal level: The unamended Constitution abolished federal religious tests and left religion entirely unempowered in a Constitution of limited enumerated powers. The amended Constitution prohibited a federal establishment and guaranteed against federal free exercise violations (things that most agreed the federal government didn't even have the enumerated power to do under the unamended Constitution). But they left the states free to violate free exercise, erect establishments and pass religious tests. While a few notable founders (Washington and Adams) thought a mild establishment didn't violate "the rights of conscience" (while Jefferson and Madison thought all establishment did), all notable Founders agreed that free exercise ought to apply universally (to religions, whether Christian or not) and that all such religious tests violated the rights of conscience. States, alas, under the original power scheme, were permitted to violate the rights of conscience. But make no mistake, when states did these things like passing a religious test for holding public office, our Founders viewed this as violating the natural rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence.

Enter PA's original Constitution which Ben Franklin helped pen. The Constitution contained the following religious test:

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Yet, Franklin, who helped pen that document, despised such test. As he wrote in a letter to John Calder:

I agreed with you in Sentiments concerning the Old Testament, and thought the Clause in our Constitution, which required the Members of Assembly to declare their belief that the whole of it was given by divine Inspiration, had better have been omitted. That I had opposed the Clause but being overpower'd by Numbers, and fearing might in future times be grafted on [it, I Pre]vailed to have the additional Clause that no [further or more ex]tended Profession of Faith should ever [be exacted. I ob]serv'd to you, too, that the Evil of it was [the less, as no In]habitant, nor any Officer of Government except the Members of Assembly, were oblig'd to make that Declaration. So much for that Letter. To which I may now add, that the[re are] several Things in the old Testament impossible to be given by divine Inspiration, such as the Approbation ascrib'd to the Angel of the Lord, of that abominably wicked and detestable Action of Jael the Wife of Heber the Kenite. If the rest of the Book were like that, I should rather suppose it given by Inspiration from another Quarter, and renounce the whole.

Franklin clearly had good reason to be against the religious test. He admits in this private letter that he doesn't believe the Bible, in its entirely, was given by divine inspiration, thus would be barred from holding office under it. In 1786, he became governor of PA where he helped repeal such test.

Benjamin Rush -- originally an orthodox Christian, but later converted to universalism, believing all will eventually be saved -- likewise despised PA's religious test. Here are excerpts from two of his letters to English Whig Richard Price (who in turn greatly influenced our key Founders).

In the first, Rush calls such a test "a stain from the American Revolution."

[15 Oct. 1785]

I took the liberty of publishing, with your name, your excellent letter on the test law of Pennsylvania. It has already had a great effect on the minds of many people, and I doubt not will contribute more than anything to repeal that law. Dr. Franklin, who has succeeded Mr. Dickinson as our governor, has expressed his surprise at the continuance of such a law since the peace, and we hope will add the weight of his name to yours to remove such a stain from the American Revolution.

And here he notes that such test was eventually repealed:

[22 Apr. 1786]

I am very happy in being able to inform you that the test law was so far repealed a few weeks ago in Pennsylvania as to confer equal privileges upon every citizen of the state. The success of the friends of humanity in this business should encourage them to persevere in their attempts to enlighten and reform the world. Your letter to me upon the subject of that unjust law was the instrument that cut its last sinew.

Ironies:

When Bishops, a generation after Hobbes's death, almost naturally spoke the language of the state of nature, contract and rights, it was clear that he had defeated the ecclesiastical authorities, who were no longer able to understand themselves as they once had.

-- Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, pp. 141-42

Jay Rogers, the Christian Reconstructionist from my previous posts, and I have been cordially exchanging emails. His info seems to confirm what I already knew: except for Gary North, all of the other major figures in that movement argue that "theonomy" is completely in line with Founding principles and they otherwise swallow hard the "Christian America" thesis.

I find this ironic because I always considered CRs to be the most "literal" of the fundamentalists who argue for the "purest" reading of the Bible, even willing to defend those "scary" verses that other evangelicals argue are no longer relevant in today's day and age. (And yes, I know I have conservative evangelical and Catholic readers who think the CRs' reading of the Bible to be unsound).

As I've learned in the email exchange, their embrace of the "Christian Nation" thesis arguably has diluted the "purity" of their reading of the Bible. Mark Noll, the premier evangelical scholar once noted, similar to the above quotation by Bloom, "In 1700 religion had been an 'exporter' of ideas and behavior patterns to American society; by 1800 it was an 'importer.'" Reconstructionists and Christian America advocates argue that even men of the Enlightenment like Jefferson and Franklin were influenced by the "Biblical worldview." And while that is true to some qualified extent, the converse, suggested by Bloom and Noll, is likewise true: that even "men of the Bible" -- the orthodox Christians -- were influenced by "Enlightenment" ideas.

Contra the claim that it was the "Great Awakening" that sparked off the American Revolution, the leading clergy preaching "patriotic" sermons -- Mayhew, Chauncey, Gay, and West -- were theological opponents of Edwards and his Great Awakening. Arguably, as theological unitarians, they weren't "Christians" at all. By 1776 unitarianism, universalism, and Arminianism were already firmly entrenched in the New England Clergy. And Calvin's influence had begun to wane. These "enlightened" preachers, like our key Founders, elevated man's reason over revelation and otherwise took a cafeteria approach to the Bible, especially when they argued, contra Romans 13, for a right to revolt.

One orthodox Christian committed to defending the notion that a right to revolt is "Biblical" told me that even if Mayhew et al. weren't "Biblical" in their unitarianism, their sermons on the right to revolt were (hence, Mayhew and company were "Biblical" in their worldview). I argued, again, we could view the issue conversely. Calvinism and Christian orthodoxy, though on the wane in New England by 1776, certainly weren't dead. And some/many notable patriotic Whig preachers were traditional orthodox Christians and Calvinists. Ezra Stiles comes to mind. Samuel Langdon (I'm still reading up on him) was also a notable patriotic preacher and I think an orthodox Christian. Yet, Stiles and Langdon likewise "imported" Enlightenment philosophy not only into their patriotic preaching but into their readings of the Bible itself.

Mr. Rogers, while attempting to argue that the Founders modeled our government on Biblical principles, seems to endorse wholesale the contents of Samuel Langdon's sermon entitled THE REPUBLIC OF THE ISRAELITES AN EXAMPLE TO THE AMERICAN STATES. From the title alone we should see a problem with the soundness of Langdon's sermon as the Ancient Israelites did not have a Republic. This sermon, while sounding very nice, constitutes a mythic account of the Ancient Iraelites, not at all supported by the text of the Bible. In short, even orthodox Christians could, like the unitarians whose specialty was an unorthodox/cafeteria biblical hermeneutic, play "fast and loose" with biblical texts to fit their Whig-republican propaganda. Nothing in the Bible suggests that the Israelites as "a people" consented to the Kings or elders that God unilaterally put in charge to rule over them. Though, this is exactly what patriotic preachers like Langdon argued.

As I noted to Mr. Rogers, of course, in a nation with many orthodox Christians and where the Bible was important, and given the natural religious impulse in man, the revolutionaries would argue that God/the Bible was on their side. The anti-revolutionary Tories also had preachers on their side and without question their "literal" interpretation of the Bible was as sound if not sounder than the Whig/republican interpretation.

Arguably, this importing of "a-Biblical" Enlightenment philosophy into the Bible constituted an "abuse" of the Bible. And one would think that Christians devoted to a "pure" reading of the Bible would reject it.

Since You've Been Gone:

No, not that terrible pop-song by the American Idol what's her name, but the one that rocks done by Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow. What's notable about this video is how Graham Bonnet is a great rock/metal singer without at all fitting the image (and unfortunately when we are talking about making it big with multi million dollar record contracts, that is something that can kill your chances). He looks like Jim Carey up there. If a rock musician is unattractive or otherwise doesn't fit the "image" they are supposed to, that probably means they are good because they have to make it in spite of all that.

I think because of the popularity of the American Idol song with the same name that some DJ has done a dance remix of this classic Rainbow song.



Here is Bonnet playing this tune with guitar legend Yngwie Malmsteen who was in Bonnet's band Alcatraz. I always thought Malmsteen worked better in this band type of environment where he wasn't in charge and solely responsible for writing all the lyrics and melodies. While his solo stuff has some cool instrumental tunes like Blackstar, he also has many songs with God-awful lyrics and badly written attempts at commercial-like metal songs.

Coffee is for Closers:

While I am not too keen on the anti-capitalist politics of this move, Glengarry Glen Ross has great acting. Alec Baldwin (just the man to play this character) is surprisingly good here.

Christian Recon Responds:

Jay Rogers, the producer of the Reconstructionist video featured in my last post, has responded.

He appears to argue that the Recons are a bit kinder and gentler than we give them credit for.

It's interesting. None of the "Christian Reconstructionists" interviewed in the God's Law and Society video told us that they held the view that God requires the execution of these capital offenders mentioned here [homosexuals, adulterers, recalcitrant children, and those who openly worship "false gods"]. Steve Schlissel explains that even in Old Testament times, with the exception of murder, these were probably the worst case offenders that received the death penalty. We see in several passages in 1 and 2 Kings that homosexual temple prostitutes were banished rather than executed. King David was pardoned by God himself. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery. And so on.

What we do believe is that God's Law is just. If God commands execution for a capital crime, then it is a just punishment. We can't be squeamish about these Old Testament capital laws. This is what our God commanded.

Now whether our society today ought to enforce these laws "lock, stock and tablets" is another argument. There has been a change under the New Covenant regarding certain Old Covenant Laws. Every theonomist we interviewed agreed with this idea. I have always found it strange that people who are opposed to Christian Reconstruction always jump to the claim that we want to stone incorrigible children. No Reconstructionist has argued that we ought to do that.

Honestly I haven't researched their writings in meticulous detail, but from what I understand, they do support execution for these things because the Bible in the OT does. See this article by Walter Olson on the matter.

And from what I've watched in the clips, while they don't out and out say, yes, we will stone these folks to death, it nonetheless seems implicit in their remarks. For instance, watch this clip by Andrew Sandlin where he notes that folks who believe in false gods would have the "liberty" to worship in their homes but not in public. I'd like to get him on record stating, here's how we would punish them and no we wouldn't stone them to death as the Bible commands.

Christian Recon TV:

Or why I believe Islam is compatible with liberal democracy. You can view some of the famous Christian Reconstructionists (RJ Rushdoony, Andrew Sandlin, George Grant, etc.) advocating their theocratic vision of government on this YouTube channel. In their first best world, Old Testament style punishments would be imposed on, among others, adulterers, homosexuals, recalcitrant children, and those who proselytize for the worship of "false gods." They are really not too far off from the Islamic Mullahs.

You often hear forces from the extreme right arguing that Islam is not compatible with liberal democracy, that the version we see coming from Bin Laden et al. represents true Islam, a "demonic" false religion. (Note: President Bush does not take this position and has argued that Islam, properly understood, is a religion of peace, entirely compatible with liberal democratic norms. Indeed, such a premise seems almost necessary to support his Iraqi War project. Many anti-Islamic Christian rightists like Falwell and Robertson, actually support the war in Iraq. You have to wonder why they support trying to bring democracy to Iraq if Islam by its very nature is incompatible with liberal democracy.)

These Christian Reconstructionists, like many of Muslim fundamentalists, are not stupid people; these spokesman are well-educated, well-spoken and quite Biblically literate. They simply differ in their "literal" interpretation of the Bible with those other Protestant fundamentalists who have made their peace with liberal democracy and interpret the Bible to no longer require the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, recalcitrant children, and those who openly worship "false gods."

Watching these folks and their scary arguments and reflecting upon how the Christian Bible and religion still nonetheless became compatible with the liberal democratic order our Founding Fathers gave us makes me believe that the Koran and Islamic religion likewise can be "interpreted" in a way compatible with liberal democracy. (Whether trying to bring liberal democracy by force to Muslim populations unreceptive to its ideals is another issue entirely). And finally, I might add, our key Founders seemed to believe that all world religions, including Islam, taught the same truth as Christianity, were valid ways to God, and provided the moral support that republican governments needed.

Worshipping Zeus:

Apparently some folks are still doing this and Anthony Paul Mator at WorldMagBlog has some strong comments about the Pagan Deity:

When well-educated Greeks gather at ancient temple ruins to worship the pagan god Zeus, one may well ask why anyone would exchange the loving, self-sacrificial Christ for a malicious demigod who married his sister, raped women, and was more like a sinful human being than a transcendental authority....Let's be frank. This religious cult knows full well that Zeus does not exist, and that is why they love him. The allure of the ancient demigods is that they were created by man in man's image, and now we can re-create mighty Zeus to fit our secular humanist lifestyles. May the torches ever blaze before the temple of autonomous Greek culture.

One of my fascinating discoveries while researching the Founding Fathers on religion, particularly John Adams, was that he believed such Pagan Greco-Roman worship was more or less the same thing as Christianity. As he wrote in his Dec. 25, 1813 letter to Jefferson, "The Preamble to the Laws of Zaleucus...is as orthodox Christian Theology as Priestlys." Joseph Priestly was, as we know, Adams' and Jefferson's spiritual mentor. And the "laws of Zaleucus" were a set of laws revealed by Athena 600 years BC. In that same letter, he calls a Hindu treatise -- the Shastra -- "orthodox" and "profound" and terms the Christian Trinity a "fabrication."

The entire letter is worth a read. It's not linked online but can be viewed on pages 409-13 of The Adams-Jefferson Letters, Cappon edition.

What's also interesting is that in the very same letter Adams also states:

“I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my streightened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World.”

And the Christian Nation crowd loves to quote just that one passages, but not the rest of the letter where Adams reveals what he really means in context, which is that he is a syncretic unitarian.

Update, Tom Van Dyke emails with Adams' Defence of the Constitutions: Vol. I, Letter LI. In this chapter Adams describes ZALEUCUS and the preamble to his code. While he doesn't explicitly equate this code with Christianity, the argument is implicit in the following excerpt.

In this preamble he declares, that all those who shall inhabit the city, ought, above all things, to be persuaded that there is a God; and if they elevate their eyes and thoughts towards the heavens, they will be convinced, that the disposition of the heavenly bodies, and the order which reigns in all nature, are not the work of men, nor of chance; that therefore they ought to adore the gods, as the authors of all which life presents us of good and beautiful; that they should hold their souls pure from every vice, because the gods accept neither the prayers, offerings, or sacrifices of the wicked, and are pleased only with the just and beneficent actions of virtuous men. Having thus, in the beginning of his laws, fixed the attention of his fellow-citizens upon piety and wisdom, he ordains, above all things, that there should never be among them any irreconcilable enmity; but, on the contrary, that those animosities which might arise among them, should be only a passage to a sure and sincere reconciliation; and that he who would not submit himself to these sentiments, should be regarded as a savage in a civilized community. The chiefs of his republics ought not to govern with arrogance nor pride; nor should the magistrates be guided in their judgments by hatred nor by friendship.

This preamble, instead of addressing itself to the ignorance, prejudices, and superstitious fears of savages, for the purpose of binding them to an absurd system of hunger and glory for a family purpose, like the laws of Lycurgus, places religion, morals, and government, upon a basis of philosophy, which is rational, intelligible, and eternal, for the real happiness of man in society, and throughout his duration.

Hopefully, this should help put to rest the notion that when Founders like Washington and Adams talked up "religion" in a generic sense, they meant the Christian religion only. Nope, Pagan Greco-Roman laws, even a code that was supposedly revealed by Athena 600 years BC likewise qualified as sound "religion" which provided the necessary moral support that all republics need.

The Truth Will Set You Free?

Not according to the Straussians. Instead of blithely dismissing their notion, I think it deserves to be taken seriously. Contra Shadia Drury, the (mainly East Coast) Straussians didn't believe that the truth was a pearl too precious for the swine masses, but rather likened the truth to a dangerous fire, one to which only philosophers could secretly tend. And the truth, in many respects, far from being beautiful, at times is horrifically unpleasant. Only philosophers, whose love of discovering truth outweighs the horror that truth often brings, could really handle the truth. This is one reason why as atheists and nihilists themselves, they despised the left-wing modern philosophers who brought relativism, and hence nihilism to the masses because they didn't bring the entire picture; to make the truth of relativism go down easier, they fed the masses nihilism without the abyss. So the Straussians tend to focus disproportionately on the abyss and its horrific implications to "scare" most folks away from that truth. Those who understand the implications of the abyss and can gaze into it without flinching, they are the true philosophers, fit for membership in their club, with its "esoteric secrets."

Okay, that's my understanding of Straussianism in one paragraph. This should help explain why they were not always up front about their atheism. Strauss no doubt was a fervent atheist; but as far as I know, he never publicly so admitted. And Allan Bloom, in his 382 page book, The Closing of the American Mind, doesn't admit his atheism/nihilism until page 278. And even then, he does so very cautiously. In Ravelstein, Saul Bellow's roman a clef/biography of Bloom, he has Bloom stating "no true philosopher can believe in God." No doubt this is what Bloom, and Strauss (whom Bellow names "Davarr" -- Hebrew for "Word") believed. But, to avoid misunderstanding them, this is what they privately believed, and thought that only a small select few in a healthy society should know.

Here is one paleoconservative's reaction, one who believes in both God and a transcendent moral order, to Bloom's "letting the cat out of the bag" on page 278.

I don't know that I've retained much of the main part of the book, except for the stunning realization, at p. 278 (a page number engraved in my memory), where Bloom lets on that he does not really believe in the traditional American democracy and culture that he has been defending for the last 200 pages. He says instead that such common and traditional beliefs are merely the "gods of the city," social myths which intellectuals such as Bloom pretend to believe in in order to secure a safe and comfortable existence for themselves.

Again, instead of scoffing at such a notion, let's turn to page 278 (277 to be exact) and see why Bloom believes as he does:

[Philosophers] observed that the most powerful passion of most men is fear of death. Very few men are capable of coming to terms with their own extinction. It is not so much stupidity that closes men to philosophy but love of their own, particularly love of their own lives, but also love of their own children and their own cities. It is the hardest task of all to face the lack of cosmic support for what we care about. Socrates, therefore, defines the task of philosophy as "learning how to die."..."As are the generation of leaves, so are the generations of men," -- a somber lesson that is only compensated for by the intense pleasure accompanying insight. Without that pleasure, which so few have, it would be intolerable. The philosopher, to the extent that he really only enjoys thinking and loves the true, cannot be disabused. He cherishes no illusion that can crumble. If he is comic, at least he is absolutely immune to tragedy. Nonphilosophic men love the truth only as long as it does not conflict with what they cherish -- self, family, country, fame, love. When it does conflict, they hate the truth and regard as a monster the man who does not care for these noble things, who proves they are ephemeral and treats them as such. The gods are the guarantors of the unity of nature and convention dear to most men, which philosophy can only dissolve. The enmity between science and mankind at large is, therefore, not an accident.

-- pp. 277-78. One of the most profound passages in Closing where Bloom sort of comes out as a "closet atheist/nihilist," while explaining why philosophers must remain in the closet.

Saul Bellow's account of Bloom in Ravelstein is interesting because it further shows how a philosopher who really doesn't believe in the truth of the city gods lives his life. Though he publicly defended "family values," Bloom was a pleasure seeking gay man, who saw nothing wrong with living his life the way he did. Bellow also reports when Bloom was dying he faced death without hope and without fear which is exactly how a true philosopher is supposed to. Bellow apparently didn't buy Bloom's argument. He made in clear in Ravelstein that he believed in God (though in an unorthodox manner). And suspected that many atheist philosophers in their closets believed in God as well, but just "talked tough."

Now the scoffing may begin.

John Adams Quotation of the Week:

"It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world."

-- John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.

This should put to rest the notion that the Founders, even after bad experiences with the Muslim Barbary Pirates, viewed Islam as an enemy, when in fact they believed Muslims worshipped the same God they did. But as theological universalists, Adams and company, from what I have researched, believed that Hindus, Native Americans, and Pagan Greco-Romans (and let us not forget Deists and Unitarians) all worshipped the same "Providence of the first Cause" too. So keep in mind when they used the term "religion" in a generic sense (as when Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Or when Washington said "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.") all of these world religions, in their mind, fit the bill.

On a related note, regarding monotheism and drawing lowest common denominators, it's clear that our Founders were radically inclusive for their day and ours in their religious universalism. It's possible to narrow the claim and state that while Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God -- the God of Abraham, some Founders clearly erred in adding Hindus, Native Americans, and Greco-Romanism into their LCD, because they follow non-Abrahamic religions. It's also possible to argue, as folks like Joe Carter do, that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship different gods with incompatible attributes. One cannot, however, coherently argue (some try!) that while Jews and Christians worship the same God, Muslims worship a different one. They either all worship the same or different gods.

And our key Founders believed they all worshipped the same God.

Originalism, Consent, and Legitimacy:

Over at Volokh, Ilya Somin has a post on originalism and an interesting discussion has ensued on whether which if any of the particular varieties of originalism are legitimate. Someone mentioned the "contract" analogy, which makes sense because, after all, the Declaration and Constitution are "social contract" documents. However, mere consent is insufficient for establishing the legitimacy of the original Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, consent is necessary for the legitimacy of a) the ratification the original Constitution as well as any amendments thereto AND b) the election of any representatives who presently sit in power. But it is not enough to argue that the Constitution as ratified in 1791 binds us today merely because a particular majority of folks consented to it back then.

For one, no one alive today assented to the original Constitution or most of its amendments. I cannot bind you into a contract for which you never assented. Randy Barnett clearly lays this out in his book. No one is bound to a contract ratified by a dead guy or a bunch of dead guys hundreds of years ago. The original meaning of the Constitution can only legitimately bind if read through the lens of a presumption of liberty. In that respect, no one's rights are violated by living under our Constitutional order.

As mentioned, there are varieties of originalism, varieties of textualism, and even possible differing outcomes in "original meaning originalism," which is the only viable theory of originalism. Original meaning originalism still needs a further jurisprudential theory to undergird it. And that is the presumption of liberty/natural rights -- that government's ONLY legitimate functions are to protect rights of life, liberty, and property, which are "unalienable," that is antecedent to majority rule. The majority does not have the legitimate power to abridge my right to liberty (so long as I'm not violating anyone else's) and I never consented to live under a system where they did have that right.

Published:

I now have the privilege of being published in a periodical that has featured the writings of, among others, a current Supreme Court Justice. You'd never guess the periodical, so I might as well be "out with it." It's First Things. No they haven't changed my libertarian politics. After one of my posts on the Founders and religion, I received an unsolicited email from one of their editors to write a "Briefly Noted" review of James H. Hutson's "The Founders on Religion: A Book of Quotations." I submitted it a while ago and they just published it in their January 2007 issue. My very small piece is not online yet, but if/when it is, I'll link to it.

Hitchens on the Jefferson-Koran Issue:

A more balanced take from someone who is equally skeptical of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism:

Jefferson did not demand regime change of the Barbary states, only policy change. And as far as I can find, he avoided any comment on the religious dimension of the war. But then, he avoided public comment on faith whenever possible. It was not until long after his death that we became able to read most of his scornful writings on revelation and redemption (recently cited with great clarity by Brooke Allen in her book Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers). And it was not until long after his death that The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was publishable. Sometimes known as "the Jefferson Bible" for short, this consists of the four gospels of the New Testament as redacted by our third president with (literally) a razor blade in his hand. With this blade, he excised every verse dealing with virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and other puerile superstition, thus leaving him (and us) with a very much shorter book. In 1904 (those were the days), the Jefferson Bible was printed by order of Congress, and for many years was presented to all newly elected members of that body. Here's a tradition worth reviving: Why not ask all new members of Congress to swear on that?

And here's a tradition worth inaugurating: The Quran repeats and plagiarizes many passages of the New Testament, including some of the most fantastic and mythical ones. Is it not time to apply the razor and produce a reasonable Quran as well? What could be more inclusive? What could be a better application of Jeffersonian original intent?

How Not to Argue Against the "Christian Nation" Crowd:

The way Chris Hedges does in his book, "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." The New York Times gave it a poor review (ironic, in that he used to report for them), and so did the Baltimore Sun, because it simply goes too far and overstates its case (and plays into the hands of the reactionaries, who now term books like Hedges' "hate literature" against Christians).

And while the so called "war on Christians" theme is generally bunk, given Hedges' prescription (which by the way, will never happen), Christianists would have a valid complaint of persecution. From the Baltimore Sun review:

Nevertheless, Hedges concludes that the Christian right "should no longer be tolerated," because it "would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible." What does he think should be done? He endorses the view that "any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law," and therefore we should treat "incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal." Thus he rejects the First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and religion, and court rulings that permit prosecution for speech only if there is an imminent threat to particular individuals.

Emotional overreaction seems to have ruined what could otherwise have been a thoughtful, informative book. So what caused Hedges to overreact? Things like the following. From the same article:

Hedges also goes to the National Religious Broadcasters' annual convention, where 5,500 Christian TV and radio folk gather in Anaheim. And he joins a five-day "Evangelism Explosion" seminar in Florida to learn tactics for converting people to the Christian right's version of Christ. That conference is run by D. James Kennedy, whose The Coral Ridge Hour is seen weekly on more than 600 TV stations. There, he and 60 other people learn the sales pitch and how to fake friendship for the potential convert. Then they talk about sin. The aspiring evangelists also are told that "eternal life cannot be achieved through good deeds or even a good life," that there is no escape from sin, that belief in Jesus is the only way to eternal life.

But the key message Hedges and the others are taught to deliver is that conversion obliterates "our fear of death, not only for ourselves, but the fear we have of losing those we love" - for example, children or spouses fighting in Iraq. This, Hedges argues, is "not only dishonest but cruel," because the fear of death cannot be banished.

This message is also dangerous, Hedges writes, because the goal of the Christian right is "not simply conversion but also eventual recruitment into a political movement to create a Christian nation," where constitutional freedoms would be replaced by biblical law, as interpreted by evangelical leaders. Kennedy has been clear about this goal: "As the vice regents of God," the Florida-based minister has written, "we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government," as well as "our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors. ... "

I don't know how far Robertson or Falwell would go, but I do know from constant monitoring of D. James Kennedy that he is one of the so called "dominionists." He even has his "Center for Reclaiming America" which purports to take back America from those who stole it from the Christianists. The problem is Kennedy's historical claims are fraudulent. They have (and contra Hedges, ought to have) every right to engage in political activism; but if conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists understood history, not the revisionist twaddle Kennedy et al. feed them, perhaps they would be less zealous about trying to reclaim something they never owned. (And many conservative evangelicals do indeed understand Kennedy is full of it on this matter.)

Just today I watched Kennedy give one of his revisionist lectures to his Center for Reclaiming America. And off the top of my head I recall the following errors:

1) Equating America's Founding with Columbus and the earlier colonial orders, as opposed to what when down between 1776-1787.

2) To prove America was "founded" by Christians for Christians, offering the following phony quotation by Patrick Henry, which seems on point:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!

The problem is Patrick Henry never said it. Perhaps Kennedy never got the memo from David Barton, the person primarily responsible for spreading that and other "unconfirmed quotations" as he euphemistically termed them. And by the way, on this year's broadcasts, Kennedy has cited almost all those quotations.

3) Asserting that Jefferson, while President of the United States insisted on having the Bible used as a textbook in the DC public schools, which is another David Barton myth. As the late Leonard Levy put it, "In matters of education, however, Jefferson was a complete secularist, never deviating in any significant degree."

4) Claiming that Jefferson and Franklin were practically the only two "non-born again evangelical Christians" among our Founding Fathers, which again, is utter nonsense. At the very least we know that Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Gouverneur Morris, Alexander Hamilton (before his conversion towards the end of his life), James Wilson, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen, were not orthodox Christians, certainly not "born again evangelical Christians."

Get well Jim Kennedy. As long as you keep shoveling it, I will have a job to do here.

Linked by TheNewsWalk:

Thanks to Tom Van Dyke of thenewswalk.com formerly The Reform Club for the link and kind words. Check out their fine blog which features some heavy hitters on the right side of the blogsphere.

Military Chaplain Case:

This case has garnered much attention in Christian right circles (but not much elsewhere). WND reports that the Chaplain was just dismissed. The controversy seems to be that the Navy wanted him to pray inclusive non-denominational prayers, but he insisted on praying in Jesus name. The Navy's rationale was that some service members to whose needs he administered weren't Christian, hence a non-denominational prayer would be more inclusive. The chaplain asserted his free-exercise rights to pray in Jesus name. And I understand, an establishment clause claim is being advanced as well. John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has gotten involved and stated: "I think the Supreme Court's going to have to look at the idea of can the government in any of its forms tell people how to pray, set up a basic religion and say you can only do it this way,"...

Moreover, Rutherford notes: "What we have here is the government's attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains' free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants."

Though this case involves a potential complicated mix of free exercise, free speech and establishment clause claims, it seems cut and dried to me: The military is absolutely right. Chaplains qua chaplains have no free exercise rights or free speech rights and do their job completely at the behest of government. You either do your job as the government wants you to or you don't do your job at all. For a chaplain to assert he has the right to dictate his own prayers is not unlike Tony Snow asserting he has a right to free speech while acting as the President's Press Secretary. Snow absolutely has a private right to free speech and such private rights spill over to protect his government job, but only in a limited sense, via Connick v. Meyers and the Pickering balancing test. But when he speaks as Bush's Press Secretary, he tells the press what Bush wants him to or he finds another job.

What further complicates the matter is that, according to Supreme Court precedent, government is not entirely free to make any religious acknowledgements it wants. Sometimes when government endorses one religious point of view to the exclusion of others the Court holds government violates the establishment clause. Other religious acknowledgements are constitutionally permitted. And the Supreme Court has not done a good job at coherently drawing that line.

But, to the extent that government is constitutionally permitted to make religious acknowledgements, the right belongs solely to the government, and not the government employee or actor making the acknowledgement.

It's usually conservatives who argue that government shouldn't be forbidden at all from making religious acknowledgements. But that just gives government more leeway to tell its actors "how to pray...and say you can only do it this way." Imagine, if you will, the state of Utah with its high Mormon population (but its fair share of religious minorities), to be inclusive, hires a Protestant Chaplain for its legislature to pray non-denominational prayers, agreeable to the tenets of as many of the state's sects as possible. And the Chaplain gets up there and makes explicit Protestant prayers which alienate the consciences of the Mormon majority. Would the state not have the right to fire the Chaplain? Or could he assert a free exercise/free speech claim?

One other comment on Whitehead's/Rutherford's claim. They write:

"The Navy's ongoing practice of promoting the one non-sectarian, Unitarian, Pluralistic religion and discouraging public expression of diverse faiths and religions violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because, among other things, the only purpose or the primary purpose is to promote the one non-sectarian, Unitarian, Pluralistic religion over all other religions and it constitutes government preference for certain specific religious tenets and modes of worship over other religious tenets and modes of worship," the lawsuit says.

What's ironic about this comment is, not only is government controlling the content of its religious acknowledgements constitutionally permitted, but specifically, government attempting to send an inclusive non-denominational theistic message is as American as apple pie; it is exactly what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison did when they, as Presidents, made their public religious supplications. Justice Scalia keenly recognized this in his very interesting dissent in McCreary, where he wrote of these Founders' God talk: "This is not necessarily the Christian God (though if it were, one would expect Christ regularly to be invoked, which He is not)" and,

All of the actions of Washington and the First Congress upon which I have relied, virtually all Thanksgiving Proclamations throughout our history, and all the other examples of our Government's favoring religion that I have cited, have invoked God, but not Jesus Christ.

Finally, if we follow Rutherford's logic to its ultimate conclusion that government, when it makes religious acknowledgements, can not tell its actors "how to pray...and say you can only do it this way," then we are ultimately driven to two possible outcomes: government actors, not their superiors, can say/pray whatever they want with impunity which would, in our example, allow the Protestant minister to pray explicitly anti-Mormon prayers as Utah state government's chaplain. Or, government could never make religious acknowledgements at all, because in so doing would be akin to government "set[ting] up a basic religion" which would render even military chaplains unconstitutional. This, in turn, results in an even further version of "strict separation" of Church and State than what Michael Newdow and Barry Lynn desire.

Somehow, I get the feeling, if the Navy were demanding that its chaplains pray in Jesus name, Whitehead/Rutherford wouldn't have taken the case.

Update: I was double checking to make sure my assertions were warranted and I found this interesting law review article on the subject. It turns out that many cases are currently in litigation. And a few have been recently decided by lower federal courts.

This area of law is quite muddy and complex. As one judge hearing one of the cases put it, these cases literally involve four constitutional principles -- free exercise, free speech, establishment, and equal protection -- at an intersection. In one area, however, caselaw has held that chaplains clearly do have free speech/free exercise rights and that's when they minister to voluntary faith group worship. This makes sense. Because servicemen live their private lives on military bases and because they retain their free exercise rights, some chaplains will have to play the role that ministers would ordinarily play in civilian life. So if the military has X evangelical Protestant soldiers who desire such a minister for private worship, the military must do its best to meet their needs and such a chaplain has free speech/exercise rights to do his job. [That way, a Catholic superior couldn't barge in and meddle with the Protestant's messages; and, from reading the article, this is exactly the sort of thing that has occurred.]

But that is still different from the case at hand where the minister in question did not act in a quasi-private capacity, but rather spoke for the entire Navy. The caselaw, as I understand, has not recognized a free exercise/speech right in that circumstance, nor should it.

The Godless Constitution:

I read the original version while on loan from a library a few years ago (see my original review). I had no idea that the authors, Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, reissued the book in 2005 with a new chapter on George W. Bush. I bought the paperback edition and am rereading parts of it.

It's a good book, though I think the authors, two very distinguished scholars, made a mistake by doing away with the normal footnoting method (just gives fodder to critics).

I've learned that the Founding, like most historical events, can be looked at from different perspectives, and the perspective advanced in this book is certainly valid. And such is, even before the First Amendment, the Constitution, for its time, was a remarkably secular document. With a Constitution of strictly limited enumerated powers, religion is nowhere empowered. Article VI's "no religious test" clause radically broke with the tradition in the colonies of requiring belief in the Biblical God for holding public office (and various other rights and privileges). And, most notably, God was not mentioned at all in the Constitution, whereas the colonies had a tradition of covenanting with the Biblical God.

Only one serious scholar in the academy of which I am aware (Donald Lutz) argues that the Constitution is largely a product of this earlier tradition of "covenanting." While covenant theology may have had some qualified influence on our Founding, that the Constitution forgets to covenant with the God of the Bible or any God, and doesn't mention Him at all (other than in the customary way of stating the date), makes Lutz's assertion downright baffling.

However, another perspective, contra Kramnick and Moore, is likewise valid and that is the perspective of federalism. The Constitution may have been a "Godless" document, but it was also a document which left the federal government very few powers over any area of life, including religion, while leaving much in the hands of state and local governments. And as originally conceived, state and local governments had great power to endorse and establish religion. Though, by 1833, the last establishment in Massachusetts had been abolished (and without the need for a civil war or constitutional amendment). Daniel Dreisbach defends the federalist perspective against Kramnick and Moore here.

Finally, there is a great line in The Godless Constitution which perfectly captures my libertarian (as opposed to leftist) idea of secular neutrality: "[T]he authors will be happy when religion has the same rights in the public sphere as General Motors, no more and no less." p. 15. This suggests that equality/neutrality/non-discrimination -- as opposed to driving religion from the public square -- should be the real driving force behind the secularism as Founders like Jefferson and Madison understood it.