Schimmel on Fresh Air:

Another great interview on Fresh Air with comedian Robert Schimmel. Schimmel is one of the funniest men on the planet. And though the Fresh Air interview is work safe the following excerpts of his shows are not.

Waldman on Fresh Air:

Hear Steven Waldman of Beliefnet promote his new book on the Founding Fathers and Religion on Fresh Air.

Sunday Music:

This was just added to YouTube. It's Kansas doing a tune from Kerry Livgren's first solo album about Satan called "Mask of the Great Deceiver." The song was originally sung by, of all people, Ronnie James Dio. This was Kansas last show with Steve Walsh and the original 6 (Walsh later reformed the band in the mid 80s). It was lyrics like this that caused Walsh to quit. Walsh wasn't a born-again Christian and really didn't feel comfortable singing lyrics with such overt messages. Though this is a kick ass tune which illustrates why Steve Hackett of Genesis once said Walsh possessed the "perfect white rock voice."

Welcome Back Neighborino:

Glad to see Southern Appeal/Feddie is back bloggin' away. Look forward to some future spirited debates between the Brayton/Sandefur/Positive Liberty crowd and Southern Appeal.

Watchmen 2009:



Chris Berez sent me a link to some stills of the 2009 Watchmen movie. Julian Sanchez likewise was on it. I can't help but share Julian's fear that the movie makers will inevitably screw up royally a "brilliant use of the specific grammar of its medium." I know little of director Zack Snyder. He directed Frank Miller's 300 and did a great job translating it. As with Miller's Sin City, the best way to not screw up Watchmen is to take no artistic liberties; literally shoot right from the comic book. If, for instance, they decided not to make the movie take place in 1985 you know it would be ruined. All great literature takes place in certain time contexts. And in this one, Richard Nixon is President in 1985; America, with the aid of a superhero, won the Vietnam War. And America is in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. These are necessary elements to the story and look like they are preserved. Good. I have no idea which or how many comic books will be regarded as part of the Western Canon, but am confident that Watchmen will be so much so I would bet my life on it.

My Favorite Hamilton Quotation:

Here is another book that reproduces Hamilton's infamous quotation on what he valued in a minister:

He is just what I should like for a military parson except that he does not whore or drink. He will fight, and he will not insist upon your going to heaven whether you will or not.

Hamilton didn't become an orthodox Trinitarian Christian until the end of his life, after his son died in a duel. During the time in which Hamilton did his work Founding America, he believed in a generic, naturalistic religion that might be called theistic rationalism. As he put it in The Farmer Refuted (1775), the quintessential theistic rationalist position:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

Elsewhere when describing what he looked for in a wife, he likewise explicated this generic religion. As he wrote to John Laurens in 1779:

As to religion a moderate stock will satisfy me. She must believe in God and hate a saint.

Jefferson on Revelation:

Commenter Brian asks for evidence that Thomas Jefferson or James Madison believed in the legitimacy of any revelation. I explored the question with regard to Jefferson in this post. I really didn't touch Madison, whose views on revelation are hard to pin down. The best evidence nonetheless indicates Madison's views were exactly like those of the other key Founders -- some revelation is legitimate; some is not; man's reason determines which is what.

Washington on Religious Accommodation:

Just to add a bit of information to Ed Brayton's excellent post. I agree that George Washington and John Adams were religious accommodationists, as opposed to strict separationists like Jefferson and Madison. However, one bit of information needs to be added to a quotation of Washington's that Brayton reproduced to put it in context. Washington and Adams, though accommodationists, nonetheless believed that all men of all religions (or no religions) possessed equal religious rights. In other words, they believed, contra Jefferson and Madison, that government could both at once support a particular kind of religion (i.e., Christianity) and not violate the rights of non-Christians. But they were concerned with the rights of non-Christians.

Washington's attitude towards accommodation was remarkably liberal for his time:

I must confess, that 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;... [My emphasis.]

Smith on Washington's Faith:

Gary Scott Smith of Grove City College has a new op-ed on the faith of Washington, which, as expected, is on point.

Although the religious convictions and practices of many presidents have been ignored, Washington’s have been closely scrutinized and endlessly debated. Some authors have portrayed the Virginian as the epitome of piety, and others have depicted him as the patron saint of skepticism. The fact that Washington said almost nothing publicly or privately about the precise nature of his beliefs has evoked competing claims that he was a devout Christian, a Unitarian, a “warm deist,” and a “theistic rationalist.”

One point, however, is not debatable: Washington strongly believed that Providence played a major role in creating and sustaining the United States. In public pronouncements as commander in chief and president, he repeatedly thanked God for directing and protecting Americans in their struggle to obtain independence and create a successful republic.

[...]

Washington firmly believed that God controlled human events. In both his public and private writings, he repeatedly discussed how God providentially helped the United States win its independence against incredible odds, create a unified country out of diverse and competing interests, establish a remarkable constitution, and avoid war with European powers that still had territorial ambitions in North America.

Because God created and actively ruled the universe, Washington insisted, people must revere, worship, and obey him. Although members of his staff wrote most of Washington’s public statements, he oversaw the process, and therefore they expressed what he wanted to convey. Furthermore, Washington routinely used similar language in private letters he wrote.

I've personally done a search for various terms in Washington's archives and you never see Washington use the words "deist," "unitarian," "trinitarian," "the trinity," "holy spirit," "savior" or like terms which would shed light on what he likely specifically believed. Washington only one time ever used the words "Jesus Christ" whose religion he approved a group of Delaware Indians desiring to learn. Washington never uses the word "redeemer"; although his writings reproduce an address from Congress that Washington had delivered to his troops that do. In only one letter does Washington refer to himself as a "Christian," and in more he referred to "Christians" in the third person as though he weren't part of that group. Washington often approvingly mentions "Christianity"; but invariably he seems to equate Christianity and religion with morality itself and stresses the utilitarian effect that such has on society. He never so much suggests that Christianity is the only way to God or that one must become one to be saved.

Accordingly, when Washington approves of Indians converting to Christianity, he explains because it helped to civilize or assimilate them into American society. On two occasions when speaking to Indians who had no desire to convert, Washington referred to God as "the Great Spirit" suggesting their pagan God was the same one he worshipped. Washington may have contradicted himself; however, if one equates Christianity with mere morality and believes all religions are valid ways to God (the test of "sound" religion being that it makes men moral), then Washington's approval of Indians converting to Christianity for utilitarian purposes does not contradict his intimation that the Indians' pagan "Great Spirit" God is the same Providence all religions worship.

Anyway, you can test my claims by searching for these terms yourself.

Corvino on Ex-Gays:

John Corvino pens the perfect answer to the ex-gay movement.

Waldman Writes Book on Key Founders' Faith:

Steven Waldman of Beliefnet has written a soon to be published book on the faith of America's key Founders that looks to be must reading. I conclude this almost solely because of who has written blurbs for the book including Mark Noll, the preeminent scholar of American religious history and such intellectually diverse and prominent figures as Joseph Ellis, Walter Isaacson, Bill Bennett, George Stephanopoulos and Jim Wallis.

Also check out their page where Beliefnet catalogs some of the notable writings and speeches of America's Founders on religion.

John Hagee on Roman Catholicism:

John Hagee, a religious lunatic of the highest order, gives his opinion of the Roman Catholic Church:



Oh yeah, he just endorsed McCain who said he was “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.”

Bill Donahue's Catholic League responds.

WFB RIP:

I thought William F. Buckley was one of the best debaters and interviewers in the modern era. I used to regularly watch Firing Line when it was on. Plus he was right on the war on drugs.

Joseph Priestley's "Millennial Politics":

Joseph Priestley, like America's key Founders he influenced, thought himself a "rational Christian" or "Unitarian Christian." He thought the infallibility of the Bible was a "corruption" of Christianity; but nonetheless, some of the Bible to be true. Interestingly, he thought the Book of Revelation and the Millennium to be legitimate parts of the Bible.

This puzzled his mentees John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who rejected that part of the Bible as illegitimate. It was Priestley's method of rationalism which he gave to them -- the confidence in man's reason to determine which parts of the Bible were legitimate, ala Jefferson taking a razor to the Bible and cutting out that which he deemed "unreasonable."

Priestley fervently supported the French Revolution, even in the midst of the reign of terror. And he used the Book of Revelation to justify his support. He didn't like the rise of strict Deism or atheism in France and wanted to convert everyone to his form of "rational" or "unitarian Christianity." He fused his unorthodox enlightenment rationalist theology with biblical millennialism, and saw the French Revolution as playing a key role in ushering in the millennium. In that he was not alone. Other preachers, some of them orthodox Christians, likewise believed the French Revolution was part of some larger event in the ushering in of a millennial republic of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Anyway that's the summary of this article. Check it out if you can access the entire thing.

Does this Qualify as E-Bay Fraud:

Someone is selling a framed, James Madison picture featuring his fake Ten Commandments quotation for lots of money.

Driving Revealed Religion From Politics:

There is great dispute over how to properly understand the natural law that America's Declaration of Independence invokes. One side argues such an idea is entirely compatible with classical and Christian concepts of natural right and the other argues the Declaration's natural rights teachings are novel Hobbsean/Lockean and hence modern ideas.

Ellis Sandoz, a traditional Roman Catholic scholar at LSU argues contra Leo Strauss, for the traditional classical/Christian side of the natural law contained in the Declaration. He has a new book out on the matter which I'm sure makes an invaluable contribution to the debate.

I can't resolve who is right in the debate though my sympathies lie with the Straussian side which views the natural rights teachings of the Declaration to be "modern" and subversive of attempts to use politics to preserve the traditional Christian order.

However, one thing is undeniable, and unfortunately, all too often misunderstood by the Protestant "Christian America" crowd, but not by the traditional Roman Catholics for whose side Sandoz eloquently argues, and that is "nature" defines as what is discoverable by reason as opposed to revealed in the Bible. As such, the natural law or "laws of nature and nature's God" defines as what man discovers through reason alone. Now this could lead to some very conservative results; the traditional natural law scholars ala Aquinas, and in whose tradition Robert George, John Finnis, Hadley Arkes, and Ed Feser presently operate use natural reasoning to oppose among other things abortion, homosexuality, and contraception. Or using "reason" and the premise that man has unalienable natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, equality, and conscience could also lead to very un-conservative, non-traditional outcomes. For instance, Locke's self ownership principle, part of this natural rights theory, could logically result in pro-sodomy, pro-contraception, pro-drug use, and perhaps pro-abortion outcomes. Indeed, Justice Stevens in the dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick noted "the concept of privacy embodies the `moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole.'"

But the bottom line is, "reason" not "revelation" is where arguments over public policy are supposed to take place, according to whichever of the two views of the natural law/natural rights one endorses or thinks is endorsed by America's Declaration of Independence.

The reason why America had to turn to reason or the natural law to ground its public order was because the politics of revelation were too sectarian and lead to sectarian disputes. In order to overcome such disputes, revelation had to be driven from politics. Indeed sometimes Founders such as John Adams termed this rationalistic natural religion that served as America's civic religion, "Christianity"; but reading the context of those quotations shows what Adams was invoking was not traditional biblical Christianity, but something else.

For instance, one famous quotation that the "Christian America" crowd often offers out of context is (Sandoz's paper reproduces it as well):

"The general Principles, on which the Fathers atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite.... And what were these general Principles? I answer [John Adams wrote]-- the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and those principles of Liberty, as unalterable as human nature and the terrestrial, mundane system "(Letter of Adams to Jefferson, June 28, 1813).

So one might ask, what are these "general principles" of Christianity about which Adams was speaking? The Trinity? Incarnation? Atonement? Original Sin? Infallibility of the Bible? No! Adams vehemently rejected these notions especially in the year 1813 when writing this letter to Jefferson (many of Adams' most heterodox statements were written in that year). Adams states these "general principles of Christianity" drew a lowest common denominator among the following types:

"Who composed that Army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes [during the American Revolution]? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, House Protestants, Deists and theists; and [Protestants who believe nothing]. Very few however of several of these Species. Never the less all educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

[* Note Sandoz's version reads "Deists and theists"; the version with which I am familiar reads "Deists and Atheists."]

Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, it should be noted, are unitarians. Universalists denied eternal damnation. Invoking these four groups as "Christians" was a sentiment heterodox enough, but understandable given those groups best represent Adams' own personal theology. Yet, Adams goes further and notes "Deists and Atheists; and [Protestants who believe nothing]" are part of this lowest common denominator of believers in "general principles of Christianity." As Dr. Gregg Frazer, himself an evangelical of impeccable orthodoxy, noted:

Adams spoke of the “fine young fellows” who conducted the Revolution. He said that they included all of the various denominations of protestants as well as “Deists and Atheists, and Protestants who believe nothing.” That is the context in which he speaks...of “the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United.” The “those Sects” includes deist, atheists, and those who believe nothing. This was clearly not the Christianity of the orthodox, who did not believe that deists, atheists, and those who believe nothing were united with true Christians on any principles of Christianity!

So even those quotations that seem on point that the Christian America crowd offers out of context, when understood in proper context, support the notion that America's higher law is part of a naturalistic theology ascertainable from reason, not the Bible.

Where this dispute may be relevant in today's politics: On matters of legislation, I don't think if a number of politicians support a policy because the Bible tells them, that would be unconstitutional. Politicians can use any personal reason for voting for or against legislation. However, if scripture or revealed religion is the only possible reason that can be ascertained for a piece of legislation, I think that should flunk the rational basis test of judicial scrutiny. This dispute is more relevant on how the judiciary might approach the concept of natural law or natural rights. Currently, one member of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, supports incorporating the Declaration of Independence's natural law/natural rights teachings into constitutional jurisprudence. And the historical record, in my opinion, strongly supports such an approach. At least this is something Supreme Court Justices seriously discussed in the Founding era, see Calder v. Bull.

Constitutional interpretation needs to be grounded in some kind of theoretical approach. And the natural law/natural rights approach is entirely consistent even demanded by the original meaning of America's Founding documents. If such an approach gains more appeal in the judiciary, it's paramount that we properly understand that the higher law of the natural law is that which is ascertainable from reason, not revelation.

Comparing Jefferson To Jesus:

That's what Abraham Bishop, a Connecticut Republican, did during Jefferson's Presidency. At least he didn't say Jefferson was bigger than Jesus. Philip Hamburger details this in Separation of Church and State.

80s videos:

Dio's "Last in Line" is so early 1980s. The kid in the video is Punky Brewster's older half-brother and was type cast as an awkward latch-key/orphan/foster/problem child in all sorts of late 70s and early 80s TV shows and after school specials.



Great song though.

The song and the video for Rush's "Subdivisions" typifies early 80s teen angst or anomie, living in a suburban subdivision.



I can't resist this one as it involves my favorite rock singer. "Streets" was Steve Walsh's post Kansas early 80s band which was a commercial flop. Quite an amusing video from a guy with one of the best voices and bodies in rock. Walsh was notable for incorporating the "fitness" motiff into his "image."

I think George Wendt is in this video.



It's weird. I was born in '73, so I was quite young, but still vividly remember the early 80s. Watching videos like these brings you back.

The Bash:

I've been waiting for this one. From 1978 at the Montreux Jazz Festival, this totally encapsulates Steve Morse and the Dixie Dregs' greatness.

What is a Christian Redux:

Eric Alan Isaacson leaves a very compelling comment on the proper definition of Christianity, one with which I admittidly struggle. Though not an atheist, I don't consider myself a "Christian," (even though I am Catholic by baptism) but have noted were I to join a Church it would probably be the Quakers, Unitarian-Universalists, or some kind of liberal Christian denomination like the Episcopalians (i.e., the ones that recognize same-sex marriages). His comment deals with what belief system merits the label "Christian," and he argues for a broad, liberal understanding of the term. My understanding is fairly strict, but not as strict as some would have it. For instance, I don't think one needs to be "born-again" to be a "real Christian"; nor do I think one needs to be a member of any particular Church, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church.

Rather, I argue you need to assent to particular traditional orthodox creeds (i.e., the Nicene and Apostle's). Indeed, one can be socially and theologically liberal on certain matters, for instance politics or social morality, and still be a "Christian" as long as one's Christology is orthodox. That means that the Pope, Andrew Sullivan, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Carter and Garry Wills are all "Christians," but Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and those who are so theologically liberal that they deny the Virgin Birth, Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection are not. (Even though Sullivan and Wills are pro-gay social liberals -- Sullivan in a same-sex marriage himself -- they all nonetheless are orthodox in their beliefs on Christ).

Who knows, one day I might become a theologically liberal Christian who at once embraces the label "Christian," but also denies Jesus' Godhood as well as other parts of Christian orthodoxy. Indeed, one reason why Dr. Gregg Frazer refuses to term Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al. "Christians" is because, as an evangelical, he defines the term strictly. For instance, to evangelicals and Catholics, Christians believe in a Triune God. If you don't then you aren't a Christian regardless of what you call yourself. I think that looking at the traditional creeds to which evangelicals, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church all assent certainly is one legitimate way to understand what is a "real Christian." Isaacson argues for the other. If America's key Founders really were "Christians" and if America was founded on "Christian principles," it would be in the broad, theologically liberal sense for which Isaacson argues. These "Christian principles," it should be noted, evangelicals and Catholics consider "heresy." Indeed one of my readers in the past aptly asked, "was America founded on a Christian heresy?" Arguably yes.

Hi Jonathan,

I’m troubled by those who insist that only people who believe in one way can be “true Christians.” If Mormons consider themselves followers of Jesus, that’s good enough for me to regard them as Christians. If Trinitarian Evangelicals regard themselves as followers of Jesus, I’ll consider them Christians too — even though, so far as I can tell, Jesus never claimed to be God.

If someone like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley honored Jesus and endeavored to follow his teachings, they should not be denied the name “Christian” merely because others who claim that name have embraced any number of extra-biblical doctrines.

I’ve heard Catholics occasionally say that theirs is the only “true church,” suggesting perhaps that Protestants are not truly Christians. I’ve heard Protestant preachers denounce the Pope as the Anti-Christ, insisting that Catholics can’t be true Christians because they follow the Pope rather than Christ.

I must confess, such attitudes offend my sensibilities.

And yet, I find you, an open-minded and liberal chap, adopting the same stance, and suggesting that Unitarians and Mormons can’t be Christians.

I am reminded, quite frankly, of how New Hampshire’s Supreme Court ruled in 1868 the Dover, New Hampshire, First Unitarian Society of Christians’ chosen minister — the Rev. Francis Ellingwood Abbot — was insufficiently “Christian” to serve the Congregation that had called him. Justice Jonathan Everett Sargent’s opinion for the court quoted passages from Abbot’s sermons, to show that the minister was too open-minded to serve his congregation.

The Rev. Abbot, after all, had once preached:

"Whoever has been so fired in his own spirit by the overwhelming thought of the Divine Being as to kindle the flames in the hearts of his fellow men, whether Confucius, or Zoroaster, or Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammed, has proved himself to be a prophet of the living God; and thus every great historic religion dates from a genuine inspiration by the Eternal Spirit."

In another sermon, Rev. Abbot even declared:

"America is every whit as sacred as Judea. God is as near to you and to me, as ever he was to Moses, to Jesus, or to Paul. Wherever a human soul is born into the love of truth and high virtue, there is the 'Holy Land.' Wherever a human soul has uttered its sincere and brave faith in the Divine, and thus bequeathed to us the legacy of inspired words, there is the 'Holy Bible.'"

“If Protestantism would include Mr. Abbot in this case,” Justice Sargent opined for New Hampshire’s highest court, “it would of course include Thomas Jefferson, and by the same rule also Thomas Paine, whom Gov. Plumer of New Hampshire called ‘that outrageous blasphemer,’ that ‘infamous blasphemer,’ ‘that miscreant Paine,’ whose ‘Age of Reason’ Plumer had read ‘with unqualified disapprobation of its tone and temper, its course vulgarity, and its unfair appeals to the passions and prejudices of his readers.’”

Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9, 16 Am. Rep. 82, 1868 N.H. LEXIS 47 (1868). See Charles B. Kinney, Jr., Church & State: The Struggle for Separation in New Hampshire, 1630-1900 113 (New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univ., 1955) (“One of the more celebrated cases in New Hampshire jurisprudence is that of Hale versus Everett.”); Carl H. Esbeck, Dissent and Disestablishment: The Church-State Settlement in the Early American Republic, 2004 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1385, 1534 n.541 (“As late as 1868, the state supreme court decided that a Unitarian minister would not be allowed to use the town meeting house because of his heterodoxy, and in spite of being called and settled by a majority of the community.”).

You might suppose that being run out of the pulpit would sour the Rev. Abbot in his attitudes toward those who thought themselves more orthodox than he was. You would be wrong. Abbot went on to edit The Index, and on his retirement from that position in 1880 addressed those who gathered in his honor: “I know we are here Unitarians and Non-Unitarians, and I rejoice to stand with Christians, with Catholic and Protestant Christians alike, for justice and purity; and I will always do so. These things are more important than our little differences of theological opinion.” Farewell Dinner to Francis Ellingwood Abbot, on Retiring from the Editorship of “The Index” 14 (Boston: George H. Ellis, 1880) (remarks of Rev. Abbot, June 24, 1880).

It may be noted that Frederick Douglass praised Rev. Abbot for doing “much to break the fetters of religious superstition, for which he is entitled to gratitude.” Farewell Dinner, supra, at p. 48 (letter of June 15, 1880, from Frederick Douglass to the Rev. M.J. Savage).

I think it a tremendous mistake, Jonathan, for you to side with the likes of Justice Sargent, who think they are entitled to determine who can, and who cannot, be called a true “Christian.” In truth, Justice Sargent may have been somewhat more liberal in his attitudes than you are – for he and the New Hampshire Supreme Court at least accepted the notion that one can be a genuine Unitarian Christian, even as they ruled that Rev. Abbot was far too unorthodox even to preach in a Unitarian church.

Peace be with you!

Eric Alan Isaacson