Very few people know that Puritanism was the source of our earliest institutions of representative democracy.
In 1639 representatives from the Puritan towns of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield in the Connecticut River Valley assembled in Hartford to create the world’s first written constitution that established a functioning government. It was the progenitor of the Constitution of the United States.
Students are not told anything about this aspect of our history. Instead they are taught that Puritanism was a theocratic — and therefore wholly repressive and undemocratic — mode of society. Thus, in the left-wing liberal construction, to form the United States, Americans had to reject Judeo-Christianity and the Puritanism on which New England was founded.
What progressive historians such as Charles A. Beard and Vernon L. Parrington have taught since the early 1900s is that the true spirit of American history is rooted in the 1789 French Revolution, which suppressed Christianity and turned France toward the atheistic materialism of socialism. Students are taught, by implication if not directly, that the French Revolution’s stirring motto, “Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood,” expresses the true nature of American democracy.
Students are taught that the Declaration of Independence was a hypocritical document, because Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal (this is a deliberate misrepresentation, as Jefferson was speaking not of slavery but of the estate of mankind under God). Students are taught that the French Revolution’s Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen expresses the true aspiration of American democracy, which in liberals’ view ought to be the French-style socialistic welfare-state.
Such falsifications are the ideological basis upon which the mythology of our present-day left-wing liberalism rests.
The truth is starkly different.
Bancroft Prize-winning historian Clinton Rossiter, who describes himself as a centrist, somewhere between labor union radicals and the late Senator Barry Goldwater, wrote in The First American Revolution:
Finally, it must never be forgotten, especially in an age of upheaval and disillusionment, that American democracy rests squarely on the assumption of a pious, honest, self-disciplined, moral people.. . . Whatever doubts may exist about the sources of this democracy, there can be none about the chief source of the morality that gives it life and substance. From Puritanism, from the way of life that exalted individual responsibility, came those homely rules of everyday conduct – or, if we must, those rationalizations of worldly success – that have molded the American mind into its unique shape.. . . The men of 1776 believed that the good state would rise on the rock of private and public morality, that morality was in the case of most men and all states the product of religion, and that the earthly mission of religion was to set men free.
Nowhere was this better exemplified than in the Connecticut River Valley in 1639.
Puritanism was indeed exclusionary in the sense that the settlers of the Plymouth and Boston colonies had come to these shores to establish Christian communities that conformed as nearly as possible to the pious and moral life prescribed by the Bible. Excluding individuals who rejected Bible-based Christianity was the settlers’ right, because they had purchased the king’s colonial charters with their own money and had endured great suffering and death to establish their new homes.
For many decades this had no practical effect of excluding individuals from church membership and civil government, because with very few exceptions everyone was of like mind.
Nonetheless, groups who differed about specific Christian doctrinal matters continually arose within older congregations and left to form new church communities. In this manner, led by their minister Thomas Hooker, dissidents in the Newtown, Massachusetts, congregation went to the Connecticut River valley in 1636 and over the next few years settled the Puritan communities of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield.
Because their existence was threatened both by hostile Indians, and by Dutch settlers from the Hudson valley to the west, they sought mutual protection. A General Court was established at Hartford. It opened with a sermon by minister Thomas Hooker who asserted among other things that:
. . . the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people . . . that the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance . . . [and that] they have power to appoint officers, and magistrates have the right also to set bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which they call them.
These ideas of representative democracy were incorporated into the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut adopted in 1639, the first written constitution in history to establish a continuing civil government.
As historian John Fiske expressed it in The Beginnings of New England:
The government of the United States today is in lineal descent more nearly related to that of [Puritan] Connecticut than to that of any of the other thirteen colonies. The most noteworthy feature of the Connecticut republic was that it was a federation of independent towns, and that all attributions of sovereignty not expressly granted to the General Court remained, as of original right, in the towns. Moreover, while the governor and council were chosen by a majority vote of the whole people, and by a suffrage that was almost universal, there was for each township an equality of representation in the assembly.
That constitution continued as the basis for the government of State of Connecticut until 1818. Because of our socialistic educational doctrines, very, very few people today know that its adoption is the reason Connecticut is known as the Constitution State. Nor do they know that Puritanism was the source of our earliest institutions of representative democracy.
Immediately after claiming a close relationship between the old Connecticut Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, Fiske explains that connection: “The most noteworthy feature of the Connecticut republic was that it was a federation of independent towns, and that all attributions of sovereignty not expressly granted to the General Court remained, as of original right, in the towns.” Federalism, in other words, is the connection–not “Judeo-Christianity.” Mr. Brewton seems to think that because he has shown that the people who wrote the Connecticut Constitution were religious, he has also shown that the U.S. Constitution is firmly rootedin religion. This, of course, is wrong.
Though references to God were standard for the time, the U.S. Constitution deliberately contains no such reference. The absence of such a mention was enough for some religious leaders at the time to oppose the Constitution and condemn America as hell-bound. In fact, the only times religion comes up in the Constitution, it is to prohibit Congress from establishing religion or instituting religious tests or interfering with the people’s right to practice their various religions freely.
Whatever else may be said about the relationship between American traditions and religion, the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with “Judeo-Christian” or Puritan doctrine.
Katzen,
God isn’t in the Constitution? Setting aside the fact that the Constitution is a document that forms a new government and isn’t about God, does “…secure the Blessings of Liberty…” and “…the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord…” mean anything to you?
Also, the Constitution derives its authority from the Declaration of Independence. Would you consider it to be a somewhat important document in the founding of our country? It states, “…Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…,” “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…,” “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…”
Yes, the “only time” God comes up in the Constitution is that unimportant little amendment which prohibits government from passing any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. How inconvenient for you that the Founders were religious and mentioned religion in the Constitution!
I believe that the last two paragraphs by Katzen fails to take into consideration the link between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Drawing upon their Judeo-Christian teachings, the Founding Fathers credited God with bestowing unalienable rights in all man. These rights in turn justified rebellion against established authority, and later were the basis for founding a new government. After the Articles of Confederation failed, they turned to a stronger federal system that incorporated the elements Mr. Brewton outlined above, in addition to some creative new thinking of their own.
God is not “absent” from the Constitution in the sense that any discussion about or consideration of God is irrelevant to the Constitution’s foundation or content. God wasn’t specifically mentioned because in creating policy or passing laws from a Constitutional basis, the debate isn’t whether to have a God-based morality insert itself into our law making process. It’s already there. The question is how to do this so that one specific religion does not gain an unfair institutional advantage over other religions. And, furthermore, how to recognize the appropriate limits of this God-based morality when making our laws.
I have another post coming out soon that will touch on this in more detail.
Regards,
Phillip Ellis Jackson
mountain man,
I hardly think that “in the year of our Lord” counts as an acknowledgment of God’s existence anymore than the phrase “God bless you” in response to a sneeze. So no, it doesn’t mean anything to me.
My post was on exactly what Mr. Brewton wrote about–”Judeo Christianity and the Constitution.” I didn’t comment on the Declaration because it wasn’t pertinent. Your contention that the Constitution “derives its authority from the Declaration of Independence” is based on nothing. The Constitution derives its authority not from any document but from “We, the people.”
And seeing as how I’m not a Christian, I don’t at all find the free exercise of religon provision in the First Amendment “unimportant” or “inconvenient.” It’s beneath you to make up things that I didn’t say and then attack them.
Mr. Jackson,
Much of what you say is true. However, I just don’t see how a reference to God in the Declaration of Independence establishes the religious nature of the Constitution.
The part of the Declaration that really explains the cause of the Revolution of 1776 is the list of specific grievancers against George III. I don’t find any of those grievances to have much to do with what Mr. Brewton calls “Judeo-Christianity.”
I don’t think that it is wise to focus on the tribute payed to the “Creator” and “Nature’s God” in the Declaration. I certainly don’t think that’s where Thomas Jefferson placed the emphasis. But even if it were important, I fail to see how it has anything to do with Puritanism. Or Christianity at all, for that matter. Certainly not “Judeo-Christianity,” which Jefferson wouldn’t even have been able to define.
Also, I want to add something more on Mr. Brewton’s article. I myself am no fan of our “socialistic educational doctrines,” but I hardly think that there’s a conspiracy to keep kids in the dark about the reason for Connecticut’s nickname. I went to school in New Jersey, and I have no idea why we call it the Garden State. My guess is irony. But maybe that’s the socialist brain-washing talking.
Anyway, I look forward to your future posts.
If Karl Marx wrote the constitution would there not then be a reasonable argument that the constitution reflected his thoughts and insights?
The Puritans were not just writers of philosophy as their religion certainly was a way of life. I would think the Connecticut Constitution was a pretty good insight into practical conclusions they found as they brought their religion and its derived principles into everyday life including how it embraced in practicality the human frame over many years.
I think in that sense the constitution has Judeo-Christian (biblical old and new testaments) roots.
Katzen (I’m not sure if this is your first name or last name)
One of the things I’m going to explore as part of my upcoming post is how the notion of morality impacts the American political process. This involves answering the question: where does morality come from? Is is man-made, simply a personal preference, the by-product of social and cultural institutions, genetic, or is there a metaphysical explanation (God)?
The first thing to do, though, is to separate God from “religion”, because although related, the two are not the same. This, I believe, causes some of the confusion in contemporary public debate over abortion politics. While I understand your original point that the only reference to religion (not God) in the Constitution is to prohibit a state-sponsored religion, I think as you read my post that you’ll see that the framers of the Constitution derived the ultimate moral and political justification for their acts from God-given rights.
These weren’t just words, but a very real belief set that shaped their actions. There’s a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater when discussing God/religion in American politics because the media tends to focus on headlines and slogans, which leads to the belief that words like the Separation of Church and State are actually in the Constitution (rather than what you correctly pointed out). This makes the making of laws completely relativistic, which leads to some very strange laws and even stranger Supreme Court rulings.
The real debate, at least as I see it, isn’t over whether to have “Jesus” in the schools, or whether to ban any acknowledgment of God in public institutions, but to understand whether the “moral authority” of the Federal government to make laws comes from God-given rights as embodied in Mr. Brewton’s essay — which was part of the American political tradition that led to the Declaration of Independence invoking God-given unalienable rights as a basis for all political, social and economic action — or whether all this was abandonded once the revolution was over and man (and only man) now gives the people their rights. Or just as importantly, can take these rights away.
It’s an academic question in one regard, but it’s also a very practical political one. If our Constitution operates independently of any real, tangible influence from our Judeo Christian heritage and the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, then nothing other than raw politics is (or should be) at work in making our laws or circumscribing our actions. One law is as intrinsically “just” as another, since the only check is the balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. I contend that “morality” imposes another equally significant check. It isn’t always enough to keep bad laws from coming into existence, but it provides the background against which all laws are evaluated, and the battleground in which the political/social/economic fight takes place.
It is a very long post, and this is only part of it. But it’s an important element in understanding why things happened the way they did in this country (like the existence of, and debate over slavery), and how key present-day issues like abortion will be addressed in the future.
Regards,
Phil
Phil,
Katzen is my last name. It does not that “If our Constitution operates independent of any real, tangible influence from our Judeo Christian heritage and the priciples embodied in the Declaration of Independence, then nothing other than raw politics is (or should be) at work in making our laws or circumscribing our actions.”
The Constitution creates a form of government. The Declaration of Independence concerns the purpose of governments.
I’m all in favor of legislating based on natural rights. But it is inevitable that people will disagree on what natual rights are. And, unless you’re willing to welcom decisions like Roe v. Wade, it is very risky to allow people to find them hidden within the subtext of the Constitution.
There is no such thing as “raw politics.” Everybody who wants to do anything has some end in mind, and it is always and end that that person thinks is moral.
Christians will obviously favor laws that are, in their view, moral. And atheists will do the same. The Constitution does not discriminate between them.
If you want to say that the Puritans has some long-term, indirect impact, I’m fine that. So did Roger Williams. So did Aristotle. So did a lot of people. Look at all the history Alexander Hamilton references in the Federalist. (Incidentally, I don’t think he or Madison or Jay make any mention of Puritan thought. Correct me if I’m wrong).
Ll Mike,
Certainly anything written by Karl Marx reflects Karl Marx’s views. But to call something “Marxist” means it contains the something of the Marxist philosophy. If Karl Marx said, “I think Barry Bonds should be banned from baseball,” we would know his “views” on the steroid scandal. I’m not we should include this as part of the Marxist philosophy
Or, to mix our analogies somehat, the people who invented baseball were Christians (I assume). What person in his right mind would argue from that that baseball is a “Judeo-Christian” game?
From the beginning of my postings, I’ve put “Judeo-Chrisitianity” is scare-quotes in the hopes of either discouraging the use of this phrase or having someone explain to me what was “Judeo” about the Puritans. Since neither has happened, maybe you could explain it to me.
Phil,
Insert “follow” between “not” and “that” in my second sentence.
Sorry about that.
Katzen,
You asserted that the Constitution contains no reference to God, and I pointed out one by direct reference and another by inference. Would you like to move the goalposts again?
The fact that God is irrelevant to you colors your review of history, especially as it pertains to the Declaration. To dismiss the importance of the Declaration displays either an appalling ignorance or a willful neglect of the principles of our government. You cannot remake history to suit your worldview, Katzen.
I thought every school child was taught these concepts, but I can see that I need to establish them for you. The Declaration of independence is the singularly most important document in the history of our country. It establishes two important fundamental concepts: 1) Our rights are not created by governments, but descend from our Creator, and 2) these God-given rights supercede government and are positioned above government. In other words, God is above all, God grants rights to people, and people grant power to form governments.
Therefore, “We the People” is a concept without meaning apart from the Declaration. The Constitution is impossible to understand apart from the Declaration. Furhter, the Declaration is the grand statement for all humankind, while the Constitution is the specific enumeration of the principles of the Declaration. I cannot put it any more simply for you than this, Katzen.
As far as my assertion that you find the free exercise clause unimportant and inconvenient, I can only judge by your words when you said, “…the only times religion comes up in the Constitution, it is to prohibit Congress from establishing religion…,”which suggests that you believe this lone mention of religion makes it unimportant. So, Katzen, come clean. Is this amendment important to a free people, or not? Is religious faith a founding principle of America, or not? Does the Constitution mention God, or not?
Really, the very existence of the amendment blows your theory out of the water, anyway. Isn’t the free exercise of religion presupposing the existence of God?
Mr. Katzan
I’ll be interested in seeing what your final take is after you wade through my next post. As I said, it’s rather large. I don’t deal directly with Puritanism, other than indirectly through a reference to the Judeo Christian foundation of our Constitutional form of government via the “justifying” document, the Declaration of Independence. I think you’ll see a tighter relationship between the form and purpose issue you raised, and I do spend a lot of time addressing how morality can be/should be employed in the making of laws. I think there’s a tighter relationship here than may be apparent at first glance. Otherwise, as you point out, it’s simply a relativistic assessment of competing interests devoid of any “grounding” other than pure self-interest.
It’s all about framing the question properly. Much of what you say is absolutely true, but I think it’s missing some connecting tissue to pull it together in a different, more focused way. A lot of it will depend on whether I can demonstrate that there is indeed a universal moral code that transcends societies, cultures, political systems, and human genetics, and even time itself. If so, a lot of the points I’m making will fall into place. [This is not a discussion of particular religious beliefs, FYI. Morality, religion, and God may be related concepts with some interconnections, but they each need to be addressed in their own right first before linking them together in any productive way to understand the functioning of the American political system].
Take care,
Phil
Mr. Katzen;
I agree with some of what you say. But you seemed to have taken a blind eye to the history of our country.
When you are reading US history, if you can’t see the obvious links between what is sometimes referred to ‘the Christian God’ or Christianity then you are truly blind.
If you run a search on our Founding Fathers you will find that most of them practiced Congregationalism. The religious philosophy was part and parcel of who these men were and why the wrote about God, God’s part in freedom, and God’s part in government.
Even Jefferson repeatedly expressed how government and the freedom of men cannot exist with out the graces of God and our working, living, and running our government under Godly principles.
“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” –Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
“The evidence of natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227
George
mountain man,
I'll begin with answers to the three questions you ask at the end of your last post.
1. Yes, every single right in the First Amendment is important to a free people. 2. No, religous faith is not a founding "principle." 3. The Constitution mentions God in the same way that I mention God when I say "God bless you" to a sneezing person.
I never "dismissed the importance of the Declaration." I said the Constitution does not derive authority from the Declaration. The Declaration is important for understanding the Revolution. I understand you to say that the people's authority comes from God, according to the Declaration of Independence. I don't deny that the Framers 1. believed in natural rights, and 2. believed in God. But belief in God is not necessarily religious. I don't think even you can argue that Jefferson was anything like Puritan, nor that he was particularly keen on Christianity. Furthermore, I think you're concentrating on something that isn't important. The important idea in the Declaration is that the just exercise of power is lent by the people to the government, and not the other way around. No belief in God required
.
Another point: you are exaggerating the importance of the Declaration to the Founding Fathers. It didn't achieve its full importance until later in American history. At least as important at the time of the Revolution was Tom Paine's "Common Sense." And I think we all know how he felt about organized religion.
My use of the word "only" should not have indicated to you that I don't think the First Amendment is important. Something can be mentioned "only" three times, and still be important those times it was mentioned. I used to say that religion came up "only" to separate government from religion, and not to mix the two.
Oh, and you had a fourth question. Does allowing free exercise assume the existence of God? No, it doesn't, and I don't see why you think it does. It plainly takes a neutral position.
George,
Fair enough. I don’t deny that the Founders believed in God, and I don’t deny that their beliefs inspired them. All I have ever denied was the connection Mr. Brewton made between our Constitution and religion. Obviously, anybody who believes in God believes that He has some relation to justice. But I don’t think this is enough to say that the Constitution is “Judeo-Christian” in nature.
I think the quoting game can work both ways:
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” -Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
None of your quotes prove anything but Jefferson’s belief in some kind of God governing morality. Fine. But arguing that is not the same as arguing that religion is fundamental to the Constitution.
mountain man,
In my haste, I made some sloppy typos. Here are the corrected portions
“Yes, every single WORD…” (from answering your first question)
“I used IT to say…” (talking about the word “only.”
One more thing. The Constitution is not “the specific enumeration of the principles of the Declaration.” If you actually read the Declaration, you would see that it contains the enumeration of its own principles.
One more thing. You have absolutely no idea what my “worldview” is. God is not “irrelevant” to me. I think (as I presume you think) that the Establishment Clause has been abused by the judiciary. You should stick to attacking me for things that I actually say.
Gentlemen:
It’s been a good conversation so far. I think some of the confusion is over what each person means when they invoke the terms “God”, “Religion” and “Judeo-Christian”. Unfortunately, each term lends itself to a couple of different meanings in the context of American political history, so the parallel conversations are to be expected at points. Here’s how I try to sort it out.
God: The Founding Fathers did not intend to establish a state that divorced itself from God. To the contrary, they looked to God (via the Declaration of Independence) to justify their rebellion against England. The Declaration also spelled out what the proper role of government was in an abstract way — that is, to insure that unalienable rights are not trampled by the states. These rights came from God. Therefore, any political institution that followed the successful rebellion had to intrinsically protect these God-given rights too.
Religion: The only real caution in the Constitution about religion was that the State shouldn’t adopt an official religion and force everyone to belong to it. Otherwise, religion was expected to be a part of everyone’s life (as a personal decision). How one views the world, however, depends on how one sees the “big picture”, and since religion helps focus that big picture, it was expected that religion would play a strong (albeit indirect) role in making laws and policy.
Judeo-Christian roots: Since the vast majority of the founders believed in God, and came from a Judeo-Christian background, the Judeo-Christion beliefs of the founders certainly influenced their thinking. The form of the government (via the Constitution) limited the formal role any religion could play in making policy, but the fact that God was used to justify the very existence of the country, and that the Judeo-Christian religion was so important to the overwhelming majority of the founders, meant that Judeo Christian principles would both shape the institutions of government and color the decisions made by these institutions.
The Jefferson quote about Christianity can be read as literally true that Christian tenets of faith were not directly incorporated into the common law. This refers to the establishment of a state religion. But it doesn’t suggest that God (vs. a particular religion) should be excluded from the creation and functioning of a just government. Without God as the ultimate giver of rights, all rights under the Constitution come solely from man. There would be no difference in this regard between the First Amendment and “turn right on red” laws. Man made both, man’s thoughts are the only thing to consider [since there are no God-given rights incorporated into the Constitution under this scenario] , therefore man can change both laws at any time for any reason.
What I took away from Tom Brewton’s article was that Puritanism, as a form of Judeo-Christianity, by virtue of the particular circumstances he referred to, was one of the earliest practical applications of the God-Religion-Judeo/Christian relationships I noted above to construct a concrete form of government. Since we usually build upon or modify past practices, rather than ignore the past and simply start anew each time we confront an issue, Puritanism — as a form of Judeo Christian religion, which is by definition a God-based belief system — was one of the fundamental building blocks in this process.
Apart from this, there are a whole bunch of policy questions about why/whether Judeo Christianity/Religion/God should continue to play any significant role in contemporary policy making, but I see this as an extension of the Brewster article, not as a main point of it. All Brewster did, in my opinion, is point to one of the earliest building blocks in establishing the process by which we make laws and have these debates.
Take care,
Phil
Hi Katzen,
Christians hold as their primary authority the Bible. The Bible contains the Old Testament and New Testament. The former were writings made before the life of Jesus and are recognized as scripture by Jews while the New Testament contains writings made after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Both the Old and New Testaments were entirely written by Jews. Adding ‘Judeo’ to the mix reasonably recognizes that the root of Christianity is Judaism which was true as well for the Puritans.
I believe you’re right that the article may not directly answer your objection that the bridge statement is more of a logical leap. I admire your ability to point out non-sequitors which is a lost art today.
The Bible uniquely teaches consistenly that human nature is flawed and leans toward evil if left on its own. I believe that is a watershed concept separating those who believe in containing collective power from those who believe in collectivism.
Those of us on the right believe the latter belief is naïve to this fact. There can be no utopian society, as in communism, since those who are designated to control the system are subject to their own bent toward evil. History does seem to prove this out.
Patrick Henry and other anti-federalists were concerned that the ‘general welfare’ clause might allow for virtually any federal power. Other concerns were of tyrannical taxation, courts that might not represent the framers’ intent, and so the Bill of Rights was to meet those concerns and thereby limit federal power because that concentration of power would most certainly be abused.
The best solution, which was a compromise, is that power should rest more with the states. The controlling factor would be that those who made local laws would have to live with the consequences of those laws.
I believe their concern, as expressed later by Lincoln that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,’ was based on the unique biblical concept that human nature is not to be ultimately trusted.
Whether one believes human nature is good and can generally be trusted, or that it’s inherently evil and needs to be controlled, seems to great divider for political thought. I think it’s a fair conclusion that the concept is rooted in Judeo-Christian belief.
Katzen,
So you DO want to move the goalposts. Fine, But I don't have any desire to chase you all over the philosophical landscape as you backtrack from your original statements and jump from irrelevancy to irrelevancy.
And by the way, it isn't sufficient for you to simply deny what I said is true. Contradiction is not an argument. To quote Monty Python, "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
Sounds like you have your thesis, and you'll simply make the facts conform to it.
Finally, your use of the word "attack" is gratuitous. I simply pointed out the rather substantial errors in your assertions. Disagreeing with you is not an attack. You're starting to sound like a fundamentalist.
Ll Mike,
If I understand your post correctly, I think I basically agree. My only question is about your last sentence, which says the the concept that human nature cannot be absolutely trusted is “rooted in Judeo-Christian belief.” While I agree the concept is integral to “Judeo-Christian” belief, I don’t think that’s where it’s rooted. I think you can find traces of that concept in Aristotle, for instance. He trusted neither monarchy, nor aristocracy, nor democracy, and so he advocated a mixed form of government.
Also, I think my original point remains: “Whatever else may be said about the relationship between and American traditions and religion, the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with ‘Judeo-Christian’ or Puritan doctrine.” And by the way, I don’t think I’ve ever denied that Western civilization produced an enormous amount of political thought that influenced the Founders. And I don’t think even the staunchest atheist would deny that Christianity has contributed a great deal to Western civilization. So there is a connection there. But using that formulation, you could connect Christianity to a whole host of things which one would never think to describe as “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian.”
In other words, I agree that the Constitution shares some basic points of philosophy with Western religious thought. I don’t take this to mean, however, that the latter underlies the former.
Phil,
I think your post was most helpful in distinguishing conflated terms. I think Mr. Brewton’s article would have been greatly improved if he had actually shown you think he meant to show. I don’t buy it though, because, as I pointed out in my first post, there is nothing “Judeo-Christian” (or religious or God-based) about the element of the Connecticut Constitution Mr. Fiske highlights. What Mr. Brewton shows beyond any doubt is that 1. Puritans created the Connecticut Constitution, and 2. The Connecticut Constitution was, in some areas, a precurson to the American Constitution. It takes more than this to demonstrate Mr Brewton’s point that “Puritanism was the source of our earliest institutions of representative democracy.” Puritans, maybe, but not “Puritanism,” which implies that there was a religious doctrine that created the idea of represenatative democracy. That idea–that the basic institution of American government are rooted in religion–is what I find objectionable.
I would also argue, contra the Left, that “secularism” is not a defining feature of our Constitution. I take “secularism” to mean a French-like public agnosticism. What exists under the Constitution, I think, is neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism. The Constitution simply removes the whole issue of religion from the federal sphere. The fact that we can find Jefferson and Paine and Madison quotes that seem to downplay religion does not that secularism underlies the Constitution.
What does underlie the Constitution, in my opinion, is a wide range of practical considerations. In Federalist 51, right after he talks about men not being angels, Madison declares, “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” This is the great test which with our Constitution is concerned. And it is a test that pre-dates the Puritans, and pre-dates “Judeo-Christianity.” It is a test that is rooted in human nature itself.
Hi Katzan,
I would think the Puritans and the framers were more influenced by biblical concept than Aristotle.
Truth is truth and I’d agree that some certainly do stumble well upon it. No one can take it by hostage since it stands well on its own, but the concept of man being fallen and inherently evil, that his condition was caused by him inheriting a separated state from God, did also precede Aristotle.
I don’t think I’d ever make the statement that the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were any more than influenced by some great minds who were also greatly influenced by some very practical principles contained in the Bible.
I don’t believe the framers took a neutral role in the existence of God when all evidence shows that they were God-fearing men. The idea of athiesm is absolute stupidity to say the least (but that is my opinion). I don’t believe we should live in a theocratic state where religion runs the government, I do believe the government should not deny the importance of religion and a moral code like it has been doing in our education system for the past 50 plus years.
In the quotes above of Jefferson including God to back his reasoning are enough to suppose that the framers were not only Christian, but also moral men that would not allow such immorality that occurs today.
Ll Mike,
I’m not entirely certain that the Framers were more influenced by the Bible than by Aristotle. Aristotelian concepts appear throughout the Federalist. Even more important to the Framers than Greek thought was Roman thought–including pre-Christian Roman thought.
I’ll take your word for it that the concept of the fall of man preceded Aristotle. I’m quite sure, however, that Aristotle preceded Christianity. And I’m also quite sure that he wasn’t Jewish. And I’m not at all sure that Aristotle was familiar with the concept of the fall of man.
What you imply is that without the concept of the fall of man, there is no reason to lack faith in the perfectability of human beings. I can’t agree with that. Anyone who has any experience in this world can understand that human beings are naturally imperfect. There’s nothing uniquely “Judeo-Christian” about that observation.
And Dan,
I didn’t say the Framers personally took a neutral view about the existence of God. I said the Constitution takes a neutral role in matters religous. You and I are entirely in agreement that “the government should not deny the importance of religion.” Nonetheless, I think the arguement that the Constitution is, at its roots, a “Judeo-Christian” document is pretty weak.
I don’t think my Jefferson quotes indicate a man particularly dedicated to Christianity. I’ll leave that for others to judge. Jefferson’s personal religious beliefs have no bearing on my argument.
At the risk of igniting a new controversy, I’m not so sure that the Framers were more moral than average people. Jefferson, though he advocated brilliant principles and contributed immeasurably to the greatness of the country, was also a shrewd, often deceitful and ruthless politician and undeniably a hypocrite. Hamilton, though a prodigy and a basically honest and decent man, committed adultery. Adams was vain, stubborn, self-important, and often vindictive, though his independence of mind quite possibly saved the country from anatagonizing the British (as Jefferson wanted) or fighting the French (as Hamilton wanted). I don’t mean tarnish the reputation of these worthies (clearly, they were some of the greatest political thinkers ever to walk this planet), but I think it’s important that we not make false idols, lest we allow sentimentality to cloud our judgment.
Katzen:
I think you’re on the right track in analyzing the Constitution, and there’s really not a lot of difference between out points of view — other than the emphasis each of us puts on certain issues. When you say “The Constitution simply removes the whole issue of religion from the federal sphere,” you’re correct if you mean the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. But if you go beyond this point, there are a lot of Judeo-Christian influences that continue to influence or inform policy making today.
The 10 Commandments still remain on the walls of the Supreme Court building (although they can only be within 50 feet or so of other government buildings per a recent ruling); the armed forces are permitted to have clergy of all faith on active duty for the benefit of the soldiers; some federal holidays deliberately coincide with Judeo-Christian holidays, etc.
Stepping up from that, we mention God (as the foundation of all religions) on our currency, in our pledge of allegiance, and open sessions of Congress with a prayer. These, clearly, are somewhat “passive” examples, but they are nevertheless contrary to the point as you stated it. And of course SCOTUS routinely inserts itself into laws passed by state, local and national governmental bodies where religious issues arrise (discrimination on the basis of religion, setting the parameters for prayer in school, erecting a cross on public property, etc.). Not every law that touches on religion is automatically ruled unconstitutional.
So, I’ll go back to my point that we need to look at more than the formal structure of govenment under the Constitution. The way it operates, and the types of decisions it arrives at, are influenced both by a strong belief in God as the ultimate basis for all just laws, and the specific religious background of past and present lawmakers who look at the “neutral bias” of the constitution through the prisim of their own personal life experiences which, for many, draw heavily on their religious training.
Mixing God and religion clearly confuses the issue as I noted above, since most people on both sides of the issue often use the two terms interchangeably. But whether it’s upholding the constitutionality of blue laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday until noon (a religiously-inspired law), or allowing “In God We Trust” to remain on our currency, The Constitution — as it is interpreted by SCOTUS — did not strip religion from the federal sphere. Rather, it simply set the limits of acceptable behavior to inject religion (or God) into all political issues. The pendellum swings back and forth over time regarding where those exact “limits” are as they relate to actual policy decisions. Since the 60′s it’s been a period of tightening the line. But all it takes is another change or two on SCOTUS, and we could see those limits expand again.
Take care,
Phil
Phil,
Certainly “Judeo-Christian” thought informs public policy today. My one and only problem with Mr. Brewton’s article was its attempt to create a closer relationship between “Judeo-Christianity” and the Constitution than I think is warranted.
I don’t think your last post contradicts what I’ve said, and, if I understand everything in your post the way I’m supposed to, I think we are basically in complete agreement on the role of religion in politics: Religious beliefs can inform political decision-making. They always have, and they always will. In a country like our which hosts numerous religions, that will mean that Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, etc., beliefs will receive a public hearing and, if they are well-received, be reflected in our laws.
I will check this thread a couple more times, but I think I’ve explained my views as completely as I can. If anything new comes up, I may post again. But if not, I think I’ll let the conversation continue without me.
“…What exists under the Constitution, I think, is neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism…
…It is a test that is rooted in human nature itself.”
What confusing and totally flawed ideas.
First, if GOD is taken out of the public square, what’s left is not vacuum. Yes, a secularist point, but it serves the point anyway. “neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism” does not exist in this human world.
Second, since you claim “human nature”, you neglected to notice your own argument put GOD in its foundation. Thus, you have just committed a logical fallacy in the first order.
I teach political science as well and I would like to see these theoretical inconsistencies clarified first and foremost.
L.L.M,
Happy to oblige. I don’t think you quote me in a particularly fair way. You skip a lot in between the two halves of the quotes. But just to clarify, I never suggested that God should be “taken out of the public square.” I will say this one more time, and one more time only: My point is that there is nothing “Judeo-Christian” about the Constitution. Read my previous posts in vain for a sentence where I say religious belief should have nothing to do with public policy.
I decided to answer your post because you raise a question about a point I haven’t had to answer a quesiton on yet. Theism is the conclusion that there is a God. Atheism is the conclusion that there is no God. Agnosticism is the conclusion that one does not know whether there is a God. The fourth possibility that I’ve suggested is the failure to even take up the issue. For instance, I would argue that the rules of baseball are neither theistic, nor atheistic, nor agnostic. They, like the Constitution, have nothing to do with the God question. (Which doesn’t mean that baseball players can’t be inspired by religious belief, or that Spahn and Sain can’t pray for rain).
You claim I’ve “committed a logical fallacy in the first order.” But “human nature” does not imply God’s existence. It merely implies that there are humans, and that they have a nature. Nobody, including atheists, deny either point. You may think atheism itself is a logical fallacy. I just don’t see what “logic” has to do with belief or disbelief in God. Neither atheism, nor theism, nor agnosticism, nor neutral abstinence from the issue have much to do with “logic.”
Your entire speeches to various and in answer to various on this subject are not quoted. Obviously there really is no need, as readers can view the postings right in front of them. The ideas behind the quoted are merely the most eye-catching to this reader after a complete examination of your entire posts here.
The “public square” has been a sphere where some folks argue like you do about God, deity and morality; it’s also the same place where others disagree with your argument. The Constitution is within the public square as the fundamental instrument. Explain, how possible is the presupposition of “religious belief should have nothing to do with public policy”? How can that be done? Can you demonstrate one example of Congress considering legislations without involving religious and or moral concerns?
Your newly brought fourth possibility and the baseball example are moot. If baseball games are keeping scores, baseball cares about fairness based on a foundational moral argument within this political culture; or it would throw the entire business of keeping scores out.
Your statement of “Agnosticism is the conclusion that one does not know whether there is a God” suns counter to your earlier expression to Dr. Phil that you do not believe there is “raw politics”. This reader cannot bear inconsistency because that is confusing. By the way, the basic theory of agnosticism is rather flawed. It requires one to not commit to God/Deity/moral imperatives until it is proven; it does not require one to refrain from the exercise of discerning God/Deity/moral imperatives though. The fundamental fallacy lies in that it requires one to not commit any knowledge till proven, but it does not prohibit one from acting upon uncommitted non-knowledge. Looking at the sheer definition of agnosticism, we know in all practicality that “not knowing” is not a perpetual state of affair. Human beings do what they please, partly because they are left to make up their own mind – man cannot prove God does not exist; man cannot disapprove God does not exist. So, if any man has ever made any decision under any circumstance, man chooses sides, even if not by words rather by action.
I’ll not reply any further your comments – not meaning to teach, particularly not in the summer and without compensation, but would suggest a political philosophy course from a known conservative if possible. Try Alexdaire McIntyre, if interested.
Your statement of “Agnosticism is the conclusion that one does not know whether there is a God” RUNS counter to your earlier expression to Dr. Phil that you do not believe there is “raw politics”.
L.L.M.,
You continue to address an argument I have not made. You ask, "…how possible is the presumption of 'religious belief should have nothing to do with public policy'?" Actually, I think it's not possible, which is why the full sentence from the portion of my last post that you quoted reads, "Read my previous posts in vain for a sentence where I say religious belief should have nothing to do with public policy."
The Constitution sets forth the rules for the "public square." Those rules have nothing to say about religion except 1. Congress shall not prohibit free exercise, 2. Congress shall not pass any law "respecting an establishment of religion," 3. There shall be no religious test for any office. There is nothing "Judeo-Christian" about any of that. I think that's slightly different than agnosticism. You disagree. Fine. Call it whatever you want, my point still stands.
And whatever you call it, it does not run counter to my statement that there is no such thing as "raw politics." What I meant by that statement is that all political opinions have some motivation or inspiration behind them, whether that be Christianity, Islam, atheism, Darwinism, or anything else. I know you have an aversion to "teaching" without a salary, but maybe you could explain better how I contradicted myself.
As it happens, I have read "After Virtue" by Alasdair MacIntyre (whom I believe is the person you meant). I don't how his philosophy is relevant to whether or not the Constitution is a "Judeo-Christian" document. If you can explain it to me, perhaps I'll enroll in one of YOUR classes. But to convince me to do that would require more than name-dropping "Alasdaire McIntyre."
By the way, I think my baseball analogy (like all my baseball analogies) is absolutely flawless. Baseball keeps score according to the rules of baseball. Such metaphysical wonders as "a foundational moral argument within this political culture" have nothing to do with the rules of baseball. This doesn't mean I favor a strict separation of baseball and morality. But it does mean I won't call the rules of baseball "Judeo-Christian."
I've revoked my pledge to myself to withdraw from this argument so that I could do you the courtesy of anwering a point you raised. Maybe I'm out of line demanding reciprocation from a professional, but, again, I hope you will explain how exactly I contradicted myself. And this time, perhaps you could do it without inventing my arguments for me or completely misstating ones that I have made.