Mitt & the Evangelical Vote:

More harsh criticisms of Mormon doctrines from Frank Pastore here. He writes:

Hugh says bigotry is exposed by simply inserting the word “Jew” for “Mormon” in suspect statements. This seems to imply that both stand in the same relationship to Christianity. This is not so. Jews and Christians worship the same God, Mormons worship different gods. And Jews don’t insist they are the restoration of Christianity after eighteen centuries of apostasy.

This is completely unconvincing. Judaism, Mormonism and Islam all three stand in the same relationship with Frank Pastore's fundamentalist Trinitarian Christianity, which makes an exclusivist claim about God. Pastore believes God is Truine in nature, and the Jews, Muslims and Mormons don't. Period. Either they all worship the same God -- the God of Abraham -- or they all worship different Gods.

Check out, also, this article by

Robert Millet, professor of ancient Christian Scriptures at Brigham Young University, and Gerald McDermott, professor of religion at Roanoke College...co-authors of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, to be published in September by Brazos Press.

They note:

Evangelicals accuse Mormons of adding new revelation (the Book of Mormon) to the Bible. They think Mormons teach that humans are saved by good works rather than by Jesus Christ, and that humans are of the same species as Jesus and can someday attain his status. In addition, evangelicals say, Mormons reject key Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and creatio ex nihilo (God creating the world out of nothing).

Yet America has a history of electing presidents with religious beliefs outside the orbit of traditional Christianity. George Washington was a deist who usually referred to the deity in vague and impersonal terms. Thomas Jefferson believed the doctrines of the Trinity, atonement, and original sin were essentially pagan and rejected the possibility of miracles or resurrection. John Adams also denied the Trinity, along with most orthodox Christian doctrine, while holding to a Stoic-like resignation to fate. Abraham Lincoln and his wife attended séances, and William Howard Taft was a Unitarian—which means he rejected the deity of Christ.

This is exactly the point I made in this post entitled Christianist, Mormons, and Early Presidents. Perhaps some in the Romney camp will follow my advice?

If more folks understood these early Presidents and Founders, like the Mormons, were of what folks like Pastore consider "a faith other than Christianity," perhaps the Romney campaign can spin this "challenge" or "problem" into a talking points solution.

Gary Scott Smith on Theistic Rationalism:

Gary Scott Smith, Chair of the History Dept. at Grove City College, has a new book out examining the faiths of US Presidents. It's published by Oxford University Press and looks to be quite good.

Google books has a nice preview. I linked to some passages where he discusses the key Founders' "theistic rationalism." On page 26, he puts Washington, Adams, Franklin, Wilson and Jefferson in the same box -- the "theistic rationalist" box, not strict deism or orthodox Christianity.

Libertarian Christianity:

Jim Babka forwarded me this link to a book review and I promised to say something about it. The book which I have not yet read, The Choice Principle: The Biblical Case for Legal Toleration, written by a law professor, Andy G. Olree, argues the Bible is consistent with libertarianism. From the review:

In The Choice Principle: The Biblical Case for Legal Toleration, he attacks both the welfare state and morals laws, citing Augustine, Aquinas, and the New Testament for support. By his lights, Christians can legally tolerate many activities they regard as sinful, including prostitution, assisted suicide, homosexuality, and drug use. He says that whether abortion should be outlawed depends on when human life begins, a question he does not answer—and contends that the Bible does not answer either. He also opposes redistributive taxation. For Olree, governments should exist only to punish acts that victimize others through force or fraud.

I think a larger point we could glean is that the Bible is consistent with classical liberalism. And modern conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism all in some way originate from and conform to the tenets of liberal democracy. As Francis Fukuyama once put it, we are all liberal democrats now. With clever hermeneutics, the Bible can, in some way, read to comport with liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism.

As someone who endorses libertarianism, I support all such biblical readings reconciling the Bible with libertarianism. But, let me, for a moment, analyze one of the book's serious arguments, which relies on a key biblical text explicating the proper relationship between church and state, Romans 13. From the review:

An important part of Olree’s thesis is that you can believe in moral absolutes without legislating morality. Indeed, he argues, God may prefer a legal order in which Christians tolerate sin rather than use the power of the state to stamp it out.

Olree quotes Paul’s description of civil government as “God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid; for the authority does not bear the sword in vain. It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). At first blush, this sounds like it would be more compatible with “big government Christianism” than with Olree’s more permissive prescriptions. Except that the specific government Paul described as “God’s servant” was a pagan one that permitted abortion and prostitution while funding forms of idolatry. And if, as Paul says earlier in Romans, “There is no one righteous, not even one,” then what sense does it make to identify a separate class of “wrongdoers” who need to fear civil authority? If all have sinned and none are wholly good, then perhaps government’s purpose is only to punish a specific kind of wrongdoing.

This is important. In Romans 13 Paul tells believers to obey the civil magistrate and that governments are instituted by God to do justice. However, as noted in the review, the context is quite unusual. Paul was telling believers to obey, not some "Godly" ruler, but the pagan psychopath Nero, whose government "permitted abortion and prostitution while funding forms of idolatry." Romans 13 hardly supports the Christian Nation fraud or Dominionism, as some inaptly suggest. Indeed, given the threshold that Paul sets for obeying governments, arguably almost all revolts against civil magistrates would be forbidden. And this is exactly what the Tory ministers argued during the Revolutionary war.

Our Founders and the pro-Revolutionary ministers whom they followed had to struggle with this verse, and some of the sermons dismiss it in a very "cafeteria Christian" manner, much in the same way that pro-gay Christians dismiss the anti-homosexual proof texts in the Bible.

See, for instance, the unitarian Congregationalist minister Samuel West's sermon on the matter. First, West answers the question -- do citizens have a right to revolt against tyrannical governments? -- from "nature" or "reason" alone, which he, as a rationalist, views as penultimate. Already having his mind made up as to what the final outcome must be, West then looks to the Bible for support. Reason, according to West, dictates Romans 13 must be read in a way consistent with the right to revolt, even if it means concluding Paul must not have meant what he said.

I'm willing to concede that reasonable minds can differ on the proper interpretation of Romans 13. Indeed, there was a tradition, which predated the Founding and the unitarian ministers whom they followed, of more orthodox Calvinistic Protestants (but not Calvin himself) supporting the notion of a right to revolt against tyranny.

But I stand by my contention that the Tories' anti-revolt position was every bit as "biblical," if not more so than our Whig Founders' who, at times, clearly "played games" with biblical texts to justify revolt.

The context of Romans 13 (as well as "render unto Ceaser..." and "my kingdom is not of this earth,") supports the notion of believers living under secular government and that in turn helped make Christianity compatible with liberal democracy.

Now, the harder question is what are the texts of the Koran that support such?

Sunday Music:

"My Sweet Lord" by the late George Harrison.



This is from his tribute concert featuring, among others, the two surviving Beatles, his son Dhani, Eric Clapton, and on vocals is the recently departed Billy Preston who was practically the 5th Beatle (with George Martin, the 6th).

The lyrics of the song express Harrison's syncretic faith. And the music, that's a story for another post, something we lawyers learn about in our copyright law/IP law classes.

John Adams in Hell:

Reader James J. Goswick is turning out to be quite an amusing troll. Tsk tsk John Adams. Deny the Trinity, end up in Hell. Mr. Goswick writes:

This just proves my point as Adams was deceived and is paying the price for it.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Begotten Son.” John 3.

“‘How shall I bear a child,’ she [Mary] answered, ‘when I am a virgin…?’ ‘Such is the will of the Lord,’ he replied. ‘That is no difficult thing for Him…God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!…Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood…” (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)

He should have known right there, that they are different Gods. Adams was deceived and is in eternal punishment for denying the deity of Jesus Christ.

I also tried to explain to him the proper way to spell plural possessive nouns, but he won't listen. So maybe someone else can try.

"Since the framer’s [sic] called themselves Christians refutes your entire beliefs."

"Religion" in the Original Constitution Meant..."

"Religion," not "the Christian Religion," just as the text of the Consitution says.

The Constitution mentions religion in Article VI, section 3 ("no religious tests") and then again in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. It's fairly uncontroversial among scholars, and among all current members of the Supreme Court, that religious rights apply to "religion" which includes all religions. So it puzzles me why the Christian Nation crowd argues that the "religion" which the Constitution protects only meant "Christianity."

If the Framers meant to endow the Christian religion only they could have worded the text that way (which is, by the way, how many states at that time worded their constitutions) but they didn't. The debates over Article VI's "no religious tests" clause particularly show that the ratifers knew "religion" meant all religions. Indeed, many cautioned against ratification because they knew that by prohibiting religious tests for public office, non-Christians would be able to secure election. But, since the Constitution ultimately was ratified, their view lost.

A North Carolina minister, for instance, in his state's ratification debate, noted that Article VI was "an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us."

North Carolina delegate Mr. HENRY ABBOT stated:

The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required --whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections in order to satisfy the religious part of the: society. Could I be convinced that the objections were well founded, I would then declare my opinion against the Constitution....

In New York, the New York Daily Advertiser featured an anti-constitutional article which attacked Art. VI. The author stated the no religious test clause would allow for the election of

"Ist. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defence--2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity--3dly. Deists, abominable wretches--4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain--Sthly. Beggars, who when set on horse back will ride to the devil--6thly. Jews etc. etc."

Finally, the author noted since the President headed the military "should he hereafter be a Jew, our dear posterity may be ordered to rebuild Jerusalem."

At the Massachusetts convention, one speaker noted that unless the President was forced to take a religious oath, "a Turk, a Jew, a Roman Catholic, and what is worse than all, a Universalist, may be President of the United States." Cornell professors, Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, in The Godless Constitution note:

Amos Singletary, another delegate to the Massachusetts ratification convention, was upset at the Constitution's not requiring men in power to be religious "and though he hoped to see Christians [in office], yet by the Constitution, a papist, or an infidel was as eligible as they." (p. 32)

From FEBRUARY 4, 1788, MASS. STATE RATIFYING CONVENTION:

Major LUSK...passed to the article dispensing with the qualification of a religious test, and concluded by saying, that he shuddered at the idea that Roman Catholics, Papists, and Pagans might be introduced into office, and the popery and the inquisition may be established in America.

That is just a taste. There is much more. See these pages put together by Jim Allison. The case is indisputable: The ratifers knew that the term "religion" unqualified by "Christian" meant all religions. Thus, whatever "rights" or "prohibitions" attach to religion, attach to "religion in general" not the Christian sects only.

Finally each of the key Founders -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin -- not only knew the term "religion" meant all religions, but believed all religions were equally protected under the unalienable rights of conscience.

First Jefferson, commenting on his Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom:

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

Madison helped to pass such bill into law in Virginia. And here he confirms Jefferson's account:

In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sactity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst (See letter of J. M. to Mr Jefferson dated ) The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world [my emphasis].

Next Franklin, who involved himself in supporting and even building churches. Yet, this unitarian supported Trinitarian churches because he believed in "religion" in general, so much so that he didn't distinguish between his friend George Whitfield's orthodox Christianity and Islam.

Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.

Next Adams:

“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.

But Adams defines "religion" much broader than the Abrahamic faiths. He also finds it in Hinduism:

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

-- To Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813

And in pagan Greek worship:

θέμίς was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.

Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?

…Moses says, Genesis. I. 27. [”]God created man in his own image.” What then is the difference between Cleanthes and Moses? Are not the Being and Attributes of the Supream Being: The Resemblance, the Image the Shadow of God in the Intelligence, and the moral qualities of Man, and the Lawfulness and duty of Prayer, as clear[l]y asserted by Cleanthes as by Moses? And did not the Chaldeans, the Egyptians the Persians the Indians, the Chinese, believe all this, as well as the Jews and Greeks?…I believe Cleanthes to be as good a Christian as Priestley.

-- To Thomas Jefferson Oct. 4, 1813

For more on Adams see.

Finally Washington. Note, these key Founders differed on establishment policy. Though they believed all religions were equally protected under the unalienable rights of conscience, Jefferson and Madison believed strict separation was needed to secure such rights, while Washington and Adams thought a mild establishment didn't violate equal rights. So for instance, in commenting on Patrick Henry's bill to promote Christianity in general (which Madison remonstrated against and the contents of which were made illegal in Virginia according to Jefferson's Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom) Washington stated:

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

In other words, he was against the bill not because he thought, in principle, it violated natural rights, but rather because it was "impolitic." But while he believed that state governments could, by right, support Christianity in general, because men of non-Christian religions have equal rights, they are, by right, entitled to "obtain proper relief."

Pennsylvania's Theistic Rationalist Religious Test:

In the comments section, James J. Goswick has repeated the following dubious information numerous times.

James Wilson, who later became a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, joined Thomas Mifflin in signing the U.S. Constitution, including Article VI, yet returned home to Pennsylvania to help draft the state constitution in 1790, which required that each member of the legislature, 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.”

Pennsylvania Frame of Government, Sec 10, in The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America, Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1795, p. 81

If Mr. Goswick indeed got that information from the cited book, he should burn it, because it is sending him down the wrong road. The religious test reproduced above was from Pennsylvania's Constitution of 1776 which document Ben Franklin helped to write. Yet, as I noted here, Franklin was against such provision, in part because he couldn't pass it! Soon thereafter, as acting governor, Franklin helped repeal such illiberal test. And indeed, Franklin and Benjamin Rush thought the test violated the Declaration of Independence which grants men "unalienable rights," the most important of which is "conscience." And all men, according to such theory, regardless of whether they are Christian, possess unalienable rights of conscience.

So what was James Wilson's relation to such Constitution? As this site notes,

Wilson opposed the popular new plan of government on the grounds that its unicameral legislature and its lack of a system of checks and balances would lead to mob rule rather than to ordered government. Because of this opposition, the leaders of the state government removed Wilson from Congress and relieved him of his militia commission. Wilson now took up residence in Annapolis, Maryland (1777-78), but this move only intensified the scandal since he was now charged with abandoning his state. As news of his opposition to the Pennsylvania constitution spread, his popularity continued to wane. In 1779, after he moved back to Pennsylvania, a mob attacked Wilson and a number of conservative state legislators barricaded in Wilson's Philadelphia home. The skirmish that ensued resulted in casualties on both sides. Thereafter, the citizens of Philadelphia dubbed the old house "Fort Wilson."

Wilson did ultimately return to PA and help to write their new constitution of 1790. And indeed, it did contain a religious test. Though, it was not a Christian religious test, but a theistic rationalist one. This is all the religious test required:

That no person, who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth.

This perfectly confirms what I wrote in this past post about our Founders desire for a religious citizenry -- anything but atheists. Or, as the theistic rationalist Ben Franklin put it:

Here is my Creed: 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. 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.

Though, I prefer Art. VI of the US Constitution's approach: No religious tests period. If the people want to elect an atheist, so be it.

Dershowitz's Blasphemy:

I was thumbing through this yesterday at Barnes & Noble; it's definitely on my summer reading list. The book is sort of a repackaging of a book he wrote just four years ago in 2003 called America Declares Independence.

So why did he need to write a new one? Back then as today, the religious right has been "revising" history, arguing America was founded on "Christian principles" to be a "Christian Nation." Though he already debunked such notion in the past book, presently, books with similar themes are quite hot. So Dershowitz wants back in the game.

To support his argument from his last book, Dershowitz draws from Brooke Allen's and Jon Meacham's recent books on the matter. And, to make the book timely, he incorporates some recent controversies such as the Rep. Keith Ellison's swearing in on the Koran, and the Stephen Williams brouhaha, where it was falsely claimed that this public school teacher couldn't teach his students the Declaration of Independence, when, in reality, he was teaching them fraudulent history, complete with David Barton's phony quotations.

As a work of serious scholarship, from what I have read, I'd give it a mixed review. Dershowitz is quite brilliant and has no problem demolishing the Christian Nation fraud. But it doesn't take someone of his intellect to destroy such a straw man.

Parts of the book dig deep into the primary sources (those parts are strong). Huge parts of the book, though, simply reiterate what other experts conclude. In an area as disputed as what the Founding Fathers personally believed on religion, simply turning to what some expert concludes isn't good enough.

And, he categorizes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin as "deists." This is problematic because 1) they didn't call themselves deists. And 2) each of them invoked an active personal God and Dershowitz himself defines deism as belief in a non-interventionist God. Now, they may well have been deists. But if they were, one has to explain why they oft-talked of a warm personal God, not a cold distant watchmaker. And Dershowitz, from what I've been able to glean (I spent about an hour with it yesterday, but still haven't bought it), doesn't.

It's more of a "fun," informative read than a work that seriously breaks new ground in scholarly research.

The book's site generously offers some excerpts, and the blurbs from some very prominent folks are entertaining as well (I especially like Pete Stark's).

"This is an engaging refutation of an insidious form of 'political correctness' of the right—the nonsensical idea that our country was founded on Christian principles. Anyone, left or right, who admires the foundations of American democracy will enjoy this spirited reminder of the Founding Fathers' true genius."
—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor, Harvard University author of The Language Instinct, The Blank Slate, and The Stuff of Thought

"The wall of separation between church and state is one of the great barriers to religious tyranny. Among the wall's most articulate defenders is Dershowitz, who shows in this readable book why the authors of our Declaration feared theocracy and favored democracy."
—Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law at New York Law School and President of the American Civil Liberties Union

"Blasphemy proves that many Christians are as deliberately bewildered about the history of our nation as they are about the evolution of life on this planet. Dershowitz has done a great service in rescuing Jefferson, Adams, and the other Founding Fathers from the religious delusions of the Christian Right. This book will strike a great blow to the forces of theocracy in the United States."
—Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation

"Right wing Christian zealots don't know Thomas Jefferson from Jefferson Starship. The assertion that our Declaration of Independence is a Christian document is absurd. Colonists fled Europe to escape religious persecution, not to be controlled by a different religion. Dershowitz proves that Jefferson and his compatriots purposely built a wall between Church and State that the Religious Right is now attempting to destroy. If conservative Christians are successful at shoving God down our throats, the end of democracy as we know it will soon follow."
—U.S. Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA)

"Blasphemy is a brilliant, well-researched critique of the Religious Right's 'Christian Nation' mythology and its misuse of the American historical record. Just as significant, Professor Dershowitz illuminates the open hostility and vitriol this movement routinely exhibits toward all, religious or secular, who dare to challenge its faulty conclusions."
—Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Kind of Funny:

Now that James J. Goswick is starting to see that Madison was not a Christian just like him, he seeks to minimize his importance as a Founder and attack his character, both physical and personal. He calls Madison "a little fish compared to the other framer’s [sic]" and concludes:

In the end, Madison was a contradiction, who was weak in character as well as physically, changing his friends as well as views at the whim of a hat. No comment should be made about his faith....

Mr. Goswick claims I should pay more attention to Hamilton, G. Morris and Wilson. Well, from what I have studied, they are, like Madison, key Founders (though not as important as him). They, like Madison, played pivotal roles at the Constitutional Convention. And Hamilton, like Madison, was one of three primary authors of the federalist papers. They were all, also, like Madison, theistic rationalists, not orthodox Trinitarian Christians. Hamilton did convert to orthodox Christianity, but not till towards the end of his life.

Moreover, whatever personal problems Madison might have had -- he was, through no fault of his own a physically small man, a hypochondriac, thinking he would die an early death (little did he know), and may have suffered a nervous breakdown -- the other three had personal character issues which put Madison's to shame.

G. Morris had a more active sex life than Bill Clinton’s; he was an avid fornicator and adulterer, going so far as to purposefully try to impregnate a married woman. Hamilton too was an adulterer and died in a very “un-Christian” duel, leaving his family behind. And Wilson was a deadbeat who lived the end of his life running from creditors and finally died a pauper after serving time in debtors’ prison.

This is not Islam Properly Understood:

Not the Lockean version for which I argued here.

This figure, the American Al Qaeda propaganda chief, Adam Gadahn, sounds as comically maniacal as Fred Phelps. The frightening thing is whereas the Phelps family are hated and marginalized (honestly, I wonder if anyone outside of the fifty or so people in their church supports their message), Mr. Gadahn speaks the Al Qaeda party line. Some small but significant percentage of Muslims actually support this vile evil. Even if it's only 5%, 5% of a billion people is still large enough that it constitutes an ongoing problem that won't go away unless we destroy (hopefully) or otherwise contain them (which in the real world, we might have to settle for).

Listen to his list of demands. There is no way in Hell America or the West should or will make these concessions. And as long as Islamofascists demand them, and are willing to commit terror in furtherance thereof, there will be war. As he notes, Iraq is just one small piece. Even if all of our troops were out tomorrow, Islamofascists like this still abound. And unlike Iraq, they directly threaten freedoms, for which not just the military but ordinary citizens ought to be willing to die. (He says American citizens deserve death simply for criticizing Islam or sending out anti-Islamic messages from our shores. One demands is that the American government gag its citizens from disseminating these messages else we deserve terrorist attacks.)

The big mistake of Iraq, from my perspective, is that it will make the war against Al Qaeda/terrorism more difficult.

And I hate to say this, as much as I like Ron Paul's libertarian message (I know he has no chance anyway) I don't trust him against Al Qaeda. As much as I dislike Rudy Guiliani's authoritarianism and statism, I'd rather have him in charge to fight the terrorists like Gadahn and Bin Laden.

Sunday Music:

Kansas at their best. Icarus Borne on Wings of Steel.



It's too bad Steve Walsh doesn't sound like that anymore. Geddy Lee and Jon Anderson have done a much better job preserving their high, piercing prog-rock voices. Out of those three, Walsh, in his prime was my favorite.

Update: If you want to see how Walsh's voice has changed, the following is "Icarus II," recorded a few years ago. As you can see, he can still sing and phrase, but he has lost some tone and range. The lyrics to the first Icarus are about aviation and flying. The sequel's lyrics are about World War II fighter pilots, very apt for Memorial Day.

Update II: I found a link which accesses the entire song Byzantium, which like, Icarus II, was recorded on their year 2000 album Somewhere to Elsewhere, and I think is the best song from that release. As you can hear, Walsh's voice, though not what it used to be, still haunts in a way that few can.

Who is The Great Spirit?

Reader James J. Goswick responded to my post addressing James Madison's alleged Christianity. I will admit with Madison and Washington, because of their reticence to explicate their specific creed, until we find more of their writings (if we ever do), there will always be some question. As James H. Hutson put it,

Seeking evidence of his faith quickly leads to the conclusion that there is, in the words of the poet, no there there, that in the mature Madison's writings there is no trace, no clue as to his personal religious convictions....With Madison, unlike Jefferson or any of the other principal founding fathers with the possible exception of Washington, one peers into a void when trying to discern evidence of personal religious belief.

And because of the level of generality about which Madison spoke on God, Hutson notes, "[t]he very paucity of evidence has permitted a latitude of interpretation in which writers have created Madison in the image of their own religious convictions."

Madison oft-used generic, philosophical lowest-common-denominator terms for God. However, "The Great Spirit" is not one of those terms, as Mr. Goswick asserts. Terms like "Providence," "Nature's God," "Deity," "Almighty," "Supreme Being,"...these are the generic terms which Jews, Deists, Unitarians, Trinitarians, and even Muslims could speak pretending such is the same God they all worshipped. All of these groups (even Deists and Unitarians) could, in some sense, claim to worship "The God of Abraham" as a generic lowest-common-denominator. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, in a sense believed they worshipped such God, except with all of His "unreasonable" attributes edited out from the Bible, so that only those parts which showed God's warmth and benevolence remained.

"The Great Spirit," on the other hand, like the term "Allah," is a specific title that the Native Americans have given to God. Just google that term and see. The Founding Fathers never used the term "The Great Spirit," except when speaking to Native Americans, intimating that their pagan Deity was the same God they worshipped. I have counted Washington, Madison, and Jefferson each doing this numerous times. Adams probably did as well (after all, he believed Hindu and pagan Greek and Roman worship was "Christian"), but I haven't yet found his quotations. For a taste, see Washington here, Jefferson here, and Madison here.

Finally, Madison almost certainly did not mean, as Mr. Goswick asserts "that the 'Great Spirit' is the Holy Spirit who is the third person of the triune God that is the same God of us all." I understand how, because of the similarity of words, one might first grasp on to this notion. But upon further reflection this theory fails. These are different terms -- "Great Spirit," and "Holy Spirit." The "Holy Spirit" it seems to me is the much neglected personality of the Triune Godhead, with most folks either discussing God the Father or the Son (so Trinitarians finally get around to discussing the Holy Spirit when talking to the Indians?). But most importantly, when Madison discusses The Great Spirit, his context refutes Mr. Goswick's notion. Madison stated: "The Great Spirit who is the father of us all, approves them." The Holy Spirit is not "the father of us all." That utterly confuses the distinct personalities of the Triune Godhead. It makes no more sense than to say Jesus is God the Father. Jehovah/Yahweh, not Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit, are proper names for God the Father.

Moreover, because Allah at least purports to be the God of Abraham (the Native American's "Great Spirit" does not), referring to God as "The Great Spirit" is even less orthodox than referring to God as Allah.

All of this, it seems to me, confirms my thesis that according to the key Founders, including Madison,

God is Jehovah to the Jews, Allah to the Muslims, the Great Spirit to the Native Americans. And these are different names for the same generic “Providence” they worshipped. Though, as theological unitarians, they didn’t believe that Jesus was God, rather that he was a great moral teacher who may have been a man (Socinian) or some kind of divine being created by and subordinate to God (Arian).

Links to Post on Rational Islam:

I want to thank everyone for the links and discussion to my post on enlightening Christianity and Islam. First Ed; then Chris Ho-Stuart, then PZ Meyers; and finally Andrew Sullivan. Also see Jason's and others.

PZ notes something that should be stressed: Even though the US, revolutionary for its time, disestablished religion at the national level when founded, other liberal democracies retained their established Churches which likewise enlightened. Indeed, Western Europe and its established Christian Churches became even more liberal and secular. He writes:

I'll add, though, that other countries did set up state religions, and then seem to have modified that institution into similarly benign forms that have had a more lasting effect. The unofficial position of America's founding fathers may have been wonderfully positive in the beginning, but we can see now that they flopped mightily at building enduring institutions that would maintain any kind of religious rationalism. I tend to think that if they had, for instance, declared Unitarianism the official US religion (with the same strong statements that religion was not to be a prerequisite for holding office, etc., and that it was not a declaration of exclusivity) we'd be better off today. There'd at least be one officially sanctioned brake on the excesses of our wildly proliferating looney-tunes churches.

Based on my meticulous study of Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, they probably desired Unitarianism as the "official" religion of the US. The same thing, however, that prevented the Founders from abolishing slavery in the original Constitution, prevented this desire -- the states would never have ratified the Constitution were this to be done. Though, the Founders may have secretly intended to "de-facto" establish unitarianism or "theistic rationalism" as the US's Founding creed.

The US Constitution makes no mention of God, Christ, or Christianity and only recognizes "religion" in terms of granting it rights (free exercise) and imposing restrictions (i.e., no establishment or religious tests) which ultimately relate to securing the unalienable rights of conscience. If any kind of creed can be gleaned from the US Constitution, it is latitudinarianism. Arguably though, no creed can be gleaned at all.

While we have a "godless" Constitution, based on other founding documents, (the Declaration et al.) and the public supplications and privately recorded beliefs of our key Founding Fathers, they did believe America to be a nation "under God." However, as I've noted many times, such conception of a "civil religion" or "public creed" for the United States isn't, or arguably isn't Christianity, but a form of theological unitarianism which Dr. Gregg Frazer has dubbed "theistic rationalism."

The responses which atheists (who don't like any conception of God), or conservative Christians (who don't care for "unitarianism") can invoke is that we aren't governed by the secret intentions of our Founding Fathers but the original public meaning of the text of the Constitution. And the Constitution a) is Godless (something atheists will point out), and b) allowed the states to establish and promote Christianity over other world religions or non-belief (something conservative Christians will point out).

Still, ideas have consequences. The fact that America is a religiously pluralistic nation which still favors religious oaths in courts of law but guarantees its citizens the right to use "any religious text, not just the Bible," directly traces back to our Founding Fathers' widely latitudinarian religious ideals.

Theological Unitarianism v. Ecclesiastical Unitarianism:

Eric Alan Isaacson, a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, unsuccessfully tried to leave this message at Positive Liberty. He was responding to my comment about the difference between theological unitarianism and creedal Unitarianism (or lower case "u" unitarianism v. capital "U" Unitarianism). That is, while some ministers in the Congregational Church (and other Protestant denominations as well) preached theological unitarianism, mid-18th century in churches which heretofore had orthodox Trinitarian creeds, I noted that the Congregational Churches in Massachusetts really didn't begin to change their creeds to "Unitarian" until the early 19th century. This has led many folks to mistake unitarianism as a 19th Century phenomenon, when it was really an 18th Century one.

A problem with my assessment is that Unitarianism, back then as today, was defined by such wide latitudinarianism that it adopted no official creeds. So "creedal" Unitarianism is sort of an oxymoron. Yet, churches in Massachusetts did become, in the 19th Century, officially "Unitarian" Churches.

Mr. Isaacson elaborates the details:

Hi Jonathan,

I guess the word "creed" has a multiplicity of meanings - - ranging from the formal statements of faith (generally rejected by Unitarians) to rather informal and general summaries of people's beliefs.

If you're looking for legal precedent, I think you'll find that the New Hampshire Supreme Court insisted that Unitarians have a creed when, in 1868, it disqualified Dover's First Unitarian Society of Christians' chosen minister - - as insufficiently "Christian." See Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9, 16 Am. Rep. 82, 1868 N.H. LEXIS 47 (1868).

My understanding is that Congregationalist churches in Eastern Massachusetts were by the mid-eighteenth century very liberal in their theology - - but that their ministers had little interest in making an issue of that liberal theology.

It was Calvinist conservatives who made an issue of the urban churches' theological drift, charging early in the nineteenth century that the liberal ministers were Unitarians, and refusing to exchange pulpits with them.

It's hard to peg a specific date for the schism between Unitarian and Trinitarian Congregationalists. Some might point to the 1801 split in the Plymouth Congregation as the schism's beginning. Others may point to the 1805 appointment of Henry Ware to the Hollis Chair of Divinity at Harvard - - which induced orthodox Calvinists to organize the Andover Theological Seminary in 1808. Still others might point to 1815, when the Calvinist Rev. Jedidiah Morse published an excerpt from Thomas Belsham's 1812 "Life of Theophilus Lindsey," outing New England's liberal ministers as heretical Unitarians.

Disfellowshipped by conservative Calvinists, the liberal ministers and their congregations eventually embraced the Unitarian designation, with William Ellery Channing preaching his sermon on "Unitarian Christianity" in 1819.

The conservatives' efforts to ensure orthodoxy had backfired. When all was said and done, New England's oldest and most historic Protestant churches were in the Unitarian Camp - - including the Mayflower Pilgrims' First Parish Church in Plymouth, and John Winthrop's First Church in Boston, the spiritual beacon for his "city on a hill." All but one of Boston's historic Congregationalist churches landed firmly in the Unitarian camp.

Here's a link to a Unitarian Universalist explanation of the "Unitarian Controversy," which I believe owes much to George Willis Cooke's book.

Please note that the Unitarian congregations never tried to exclude Trinitarians on doctrinal or creedal grounds. Rather, Calvinist Trinitarians systematically disfellowshipped and shunned the religious liberals, condemning and isolating them as Unitarian heretics - - and the liberals eventually responded by embracing the name.

Today the liberal congregations are members of a denomination that celebrates human diversity and spiritual freedom within and among its religious communities.

As for the conservative churches in the Congregationalists' nineteenth-century schism - - they today are members of the United Church of Christ, perhaps the most liberal of America's "mainline" Trinitarian denominations.

And despite our little family squabble, most Unitarian Universalists today regard the United Church of Christ with considerable pride, as our sibling denomination.

Eric Alan Isaacson

Cowgirl in the Sand:

One of Neil Young's best.

Gay Species on Priestly:

Gay Species tried to comment on this thread. But since Positive Liberty has been having problems with our comments section, it didn't go through. I have reproduced it here.

The Question

Unitarian or Trinitarian? Christ’s Dual Natures? Is Priestly Corrupting Christianity?


The Sources of Revelation

Dei verbum: Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other . . . and make up a single deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church.

2 Th 2:15: So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Act 2:42: They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The Epiphany & Trinity

Matt 3:13-17: Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfil all righteousness.’ Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ (See also, Mark 1:9-11 & Luke 3:21-22)

Philippians 2:5-11:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

The Logos

1 Jn 1:2-3: His life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ

Ephesians 2:18: for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father.

Col 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

Heb 1:1-4:Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

John 3:34: He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.

John 17:4: I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do.

2 Cor 1:20: For in him every one of God’s promises is a ‘Yes.’ For this reason it is through him that we say the ‘Amen’, to the glory of God.

2 Cor 3:17-18, 4:4-6: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit. I n their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Ignatius of Antioch (112): There is one physican, fleshly and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God in Man, true life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passable then impassible, Jesus Christ (Incarnation)

Processionism

Clement of Rome (100): The Apostles for our sakes received the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ then is from God, and the Apostles from Christ . . . and through the Spirit they appointed their first fruits to be bishops and deacons [overseers and ministers] of them that should believe.

The Vincentian Canon (Catholicity)

Vincent of Lerins (434): Now, in the Catholic Church itself we take greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. One must compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire of their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued steadfast in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church.

Conclusion

Priestly's work omits all these passages, in what can only be considered "selective" reading. The Baptism of Jesus is the Epiphany of his Divine-Human Sonship, testified by both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and becomes the Theophany of the Trinity. After Easter, the Feast of the Epiphany is the second oldest and most important feast of the Christian Church. As Jesus commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined de fide the dual natures of Jesus. In long, Priestly is the corruption.

Jefferson the Saxonist and the Proposed Great Seal:

Wayne Dynes, a retired art history professor, always has interesting historical nuggets to offer on his blogs. Dynes argues Jefferson may have tried to peddle the "Saxonist myth." I know Jefferson attempted to debunk the notion that Christianity is part of the common law, suggesting that since the common law predated Christianity in England, it is by nature pagan, part of England's Saxon not Christian heritage.

Though Christian Nationalists often note Jefferson's and Franklin's proposed Great Seal featuring "a pillar of fire leading the Chosen People into the Promised Land," Dynes reminds us what was to be on the other side of Jefferson's, "the images of Hengist and Horsa." And this is bad because:

The racial character of this combination is unmistakable. Those of English heritage must predominate on the new continent because of the primordial excellence of the Anglo-Saxons, personified by Hengist and Horsa. The pillar of fire designates the collective side. It belongs to what is termed the theory of manifest destiny, the idea that the original settlers of British North America were entitled to exercise supremacy over the whole continent--and beyond.

I think this concludes too far. Jefferson's greatest accomplishments, what he wished to be remembered for, were his great works of abstract philosophy -- his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, and his establishing the University of Virginia. These principles transcend “'roots,' the idea that ethnicity plays a special role in one’s identity." Indeed, Jefferson thought such natural rights belonged to "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

If he did flirt with such ideas of Saxonism, ethnic conquest, they certainly weren't central to his philosophy and ought not be remembered as anything other than an interesting footnote in his history.

On a side note, the history of the original proposals for The Great Seal by Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, are quite interesting in and of themselves. Again, what we usually hear is the part about one side featuring Moses challenging Pharaoh. But that was proposed along side pagan imagery:

Benjamin Franklin's proposal is preserved in a note of his own handwriting:

"Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity.

"Motto, Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."

Thomas Jefferson also suggested allegorical scenes. For the front of the seal: children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. For the reverse: Hengist and Horsa, the two brothers who were the legendary leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon settlers in Britain.

John Adams chose the allegorical painting known as the "Judgment of Hercules" where the young Hercules must choose to travel either on the flowery path of self-indulgence or ascend the rugged, uphill way of duty to others and honor to himself.

This seems not unlike the Supreme Court Frieze featuring Moses and the Ten Commandments surrounded by such pagan lawgivers Hammurabi, Muhammad, Menes, Lycurgus, Solon, Confucius, and others.

As they would tell the story, the Founders, from 1776-1789, "constructed" our public order using the tools of "reason" and "the senses," enlighted men drawing from a variety of philosophical sources, as many pagan as "Judeo-Christian." Believing man's reason supreme, they could "extract" only those rational parts from the classical Greco-Roman democracies and republics of old, the Bible, the Christian religion and the pagan pantheon.

In reality, they "rewrote," or "reimagined" much of the history of these ancient sources. Certainly, having some affinity for some Biblical narratives, the classic being Moses' and the Jews' liberation from Egypt, they conveniently interpreted the Bible to suit their modern Whig-Enlightenment beliefs. They stressed the Ancient Jews' liberation, "explained away" Romans 13 (where Paul states rebellion against civil leaders is out of the question), and pretended the Ancient Israelites had a "Republic," when clearly, they did not, as such concept entirely derives from the West's pagan Greco-Roman heritage. Accordingly, more inspired by their pagan heritage, they adopted pseudonyms from the pagan past like Publius, Cato, and Brutus, when they wrote anonymously. Yet, as with the Bible, they viewed the history of the pagan Greeks and Romans through their modern Whig Enlightenment lens and similarly, took liberties with the past.

Whether their reason really "discovered" principles true everywhere, every time (something I'd like to believe), the ideas with which they came forth -- liberty, equality, property, conscience, science, progress, the rights of man -- are the best the world has ever seen and thus ought to be preserved.

Summer Reading:

Google has digitized Joseph Priestly's A History of the Corruptions of Christianity. This book gives explicit detailed insight into the unitarian theology of Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin who explicitly credited Priestly as their spiritual mentor. These men also used the term "corruptions of Christianity" to explain what it was about modern Christianity with which they disagreed. In short, those corruptions as defined by Priestly were the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and plenary inspiration of scripture. In long, read the book.

While Europe Slept:

This is a book I am going to try to read this summer. Check out Bruce Bawer, one of the finest essayists of the modern era, discussing Europe and Islam on Bill Moyers' show. The book is about how tolerant Europe has become too tolerant of intolerant Muslims, and how they, in turn, threaten Europe's live and let live lifestyle.

Moyers seemed to stress over and over again -- but this isn't the way most Muslims are, right? In my community college classes, I usually have at least one (sometimes more) Muslim in a class of 25+. I also have plenty of traditional Christians, liberal Christians, Jewish students, atheists, agnostics, and so on and so forth. Whenever I criticize the more extreme elements of Islam, I always stress that most Muslims say this doesn't represent the authentic version of their faith. Now, in truth, I have no idea whether I'm right and may well be engaging in a Straussian lie. But, if Islam, as a faith, isn't going away -- and I don't think it is -- Muslims must be convinced that a more liberal, sober and rational understanding of their faith is the authentic one. This is exactly what Madison tried to do with Christians in his Memorial and Remonstrance.

Indeed, how we deal with intolerant religions reflects a paradox in Founding thought. Rick Garnett discussed it here and I responded with my thoughts. The paradox is, the rights of conscience are so profound government has no business saying what is true or false religion. Yet, government indeed does have an interest in promoting the "right" kind of religion, that is religion compatible with liberal democratic, secular, pluralistic norms.

Our Founders did to Christianity what the modern liberal governments and institutions, are, or ought to be doing to Islam (like telling folks extreme Islam doesn't represent authentic Islam).

Almost all of the most notable Christian thinkers from the pre-Founding era differed with our Founders on tolerance and the freedom to worship. John Calvin knew the Bible as well as anyone but thought it entirely proper to see see Servetus burned at the stake simply for publicly denying the Trinity. Likewise, Calvinist Samuel Rutherford, who purportedly influenced our revolution, too thought it just for Servetus to be executed in that manner. All of the early colonies except Rhode Island didn't grant freedom to worship and often imposed brutal punishments sometimes executions, for worshipping the "wrong" way. And they all justified such with textual appeals to the Bible.

To our Founders (the most notable of whom, like Servetus, weren't even "real Christians" but unitarians) this was not authentic Christianity, or Christianity properly understood. Our Founders had a vested interest in convincing Christians that most notable past Christian thinkers from Augustine to Aquinas to Luther to Calvin to John Winthrop erred on tolerance and religious liberty. And though the government ultimately granted (and still grants) free exercise of religion to any religious thought, no matter how extreme, the Founders still endorsed, mainly through their supplications to God, a version of religion that was kinder and gentler than what came before. As Rick Garnett put it:

Secular, liberal, democratic governments like ours not only take cognizance of, but also and in many ways seek to assimilate—that is, to transform—religion and religious teaching.

The early Presidents did do a lot of "God talk," and most of it was not even particularly Christian, but spoken in generic or philosophical language, purposefully worded to include religions outside of Christianity. Sometimes though, they did speak of Christianity or revelation and they often used particular adjectives and qualifiers to describe such: "Benevolent", "benign" and even "liberal" and "enlightened."

For instance Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address I have emphasized those terms:

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter -- with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?

Or George Washington's Circular to the States:

The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society.

These Founders were not simply "taking" the Christian religion as they found it; they were actively involved in a project to make such kinder, gentler, more sober and rational.

We should do the same with Islam.

Falwell in Hell:

I'm sorry, but I just can't do anything but laugh hard at Phelps' lunatic rants.