Forest vs. trees
This weekend the Times has a fairly interesting piece on the debate over the relative level of "faith" among the nation's founders, as well as the temperature of the debate over religion in the 18th vs. 21st centuries.
But the story ends up being a typical "Expert A says" while "Expert B retorts." The debate we should be having is not whether Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al believed in "An Almighty," a "Creator" or "God" Himself. They were typical of educated men of their times in that they seemed to believe in a Divine Being of some sort and that religion was beneficial as a source of public morality.
There is no debate there.
The real issue that goes unremarked upon in the article is the degree to which religion -- specifically a "Christian" religion -- played out in their policy making. In other words, was this nation founded as a "Judeo-Christian" nation (with an edge to the latter name in the partnership), as religious fundamentalist historians and politicians would have us believe? Or, created as it was in the shadow of the Enlightenment and influenced by British law, was it based on an amalgram of Enlightenment principles and English Parliamentary and Common Law, with a smattering of Roman classicism thrown in? Based on most of the important texts, I'm going with the latter.
Stories like the Times' frame the debate in a way in which the fundies certainly hold the advantage. It makes it appear that if the founders were not atheists, then, by inference, their "Christian faith" must have been in a key influence on their vision of the operating principles of this country's government. And I believe that that is simply not so.
I also question some of the assertions historians in the article, that the "temperature" of the debate was a lot lower in the 18th century. True, to the extent that the radical clerics of the day were not in political and media ascension. But, then as now, an atheist couldn't get elected dog catcher, as the brutal campaigns against Jefferson (and his reaction to them) attest.
But the story ends up being a typical "Expert A says" while "Expert B retorts." The debate we should be having is not whether Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al believed in "An Almighty," a "Creator" or "God" Himself. They were typical of educated men of their times in that they seemed to believe in a Divine Being of some sort and that religion was beneficial as a source of public morality.
There is no debate there.
The real issue that goes unremarked upon in the article is the degree to which religion -- specifically a "Christian" religion -- played out in their policy making. In other words, was this nation founded as a "Judeo-Christian" nation (with an edge to the latter name in the partnership), as religious fundamentalist historians and politicians would have us believe? Or, created as it was in the shadow of the Enlightenment and influenced by British law, was it based on an amalgram of Enlightenment principles and English Parliamentary and Common Law, with a smattering of Roman classicism thrown in? Based on most of the important texts, I'm going with the latter.
Stories like the Times' frame the debate in a way in which the fundies certainly hold the advantage. It makes it appear that if the founders were not atheists, then, by inference, their "Christian faith" must have been in a key influence on their vision of the operating principles of this country's government. And I believe that that is simply not so.
I also question some of the assertions historians in the article, that the "temperature" of the debate was a lot lower in the 18th century. True, to the extent that the radical clerics of the day were not in political and media ascension. But, then as now, an atheist couldn't get elected dog catcher, as the brutal campaigns against Jefferson (and his reaction to them) attest.
posted by John at 11:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home