Deism in the Declaration

My husband Paul Hsieh (of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) recently pointed me to an essay by Eric Raymond entitled Deism and the Founding Fathers. I'd definitely recommend reading the whole essay, but I wanted to except a few critical passages:

Religious conservatives are fond of replying by pointing excitedly at the references to "Nature's God", "Divine Providence", and the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence.

Raymond then quotes the relevant passages of the Declaration:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights;

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Raymond then cites some other passages in Jefferson's writings where he displays as obvious hostility to Christianity. So Raymond asks, "Of what 'God', if not the Christian one, was Jefferson speaking?" He replies:

The answer to this question -- which also explains the references in the Declaration of Independence -- is that Jefferson, like many intellectuals of his time, was a Deist. The "Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, and the God of Jefferson's altar, is not the intervening Christian God but the God of Deism.

Deism was an early attempt to reconcile the mechanistic world-view arising from experimental science with religion. Deists believed in a remote sort of clockmaker-God who created the universe but then refrained from meddling in it afterwards. Deists explicitly rejected faith, revelation, religious doctrine, religious authority, and all existing religions. They held that humans could know the mind of God only through the study of nature; in many versions of Deist thinking, the mind of God was explicitly identified with the laws of nature.

Thus "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God"; in Deist thought these concepts blurred together. The phrase "endowed by their Creator" could be rendered accurately as "endowed by Nature". In modern terms, this is an entirely naturalistic account of human rights.

That's exactly right. Finally, Raymond notes:

Jefferson’s "altar of God" quote and the references in the Declaration of Independence are easy to misconstrue today because Deism did not long outlive the Founding Fathers. In their time it functioned as a sort of halfway house for intellectuals who rejected traditional religion but were unwilling to declare themselves atheists or agnostics. As the social risk of taking these positions decreased, Deism waned.

Given the bravery of the early Americans in opposing the British Empire, I doubt that intellectual cowardice was the reason for their deism. I suspect -- although I've not much researched the subject -- that they accepted some version of the Argument from Design. Absent a solid grasp of the fact that physical laws are the necessary expression of the identity of entities and absent an explanation for the great diversity and complexity of living organisms, the Argument from Design would seem quite plausible. It's still flawed, purely on philosophic grounds, but the mistake was understandable in the 18th century. Deism was the rather benign result of that mistake.

Today, people have far less excuse for believing in God's existence on such grounds, as the scientific and philosophic objections to the Argument from Design are well-known and devastating. They have no excuse for leaping from such arguments to claims about the truth of Christianity. The Argument from Design, even if sound, could not lend the slightest bit of support to the myths and dogmas of Christianity.

For more, see my three podcasts on the Argument from Design: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Part 4 is forthcoming.

Read more...

In Defense of Secularism

Fellow OActivist Amesh Adalja recently published this letter in defense of secularism in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

Theocrats more harmful
Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Despite Brad Tupi's protestations to the contrary in his letter "Secularism harms U.S." (Dec. 25 and TribLIVE.com), secularism is inherent in this nation and it is Christian theocrats like Mr. Tupi who have done more damage to this nation than any secularist.

While it is true that the Founders often uttered conflicting statements regarding religion, they chose to make the U.S. Constitution and the nation's currency entirely devoid of any reference to a deity -- proof of their desire for a separation between government and religion.

It is the religionists who have taken the Christian idolization of sacrifice to new heights by creating a welfare state where each is his brother's keeper, women are castigated for exercising the right to their own bodies and people fear openly expressing their sexual orientation.

As Thomas Paine aptly stated, "mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America."

Amesh A. Adalja
Butler

Read more...

Is the U.S. a Christian Nation?

Sociologist Dr. William Martin -- the author of the excellent history of the rise of the religious right, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America -- recently debated the question Is the US a Christian Nation? on Opposing Views.

Dr. Martin's careful approach to the debate is exemplified in his first comment -- What Do You Mean By That? -- in which he clarifies the question and his position.

Read more...

The World Of The Framers: A Christian Nation?

What were the religious views of the major Founding Fathers? University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone answers that question in this excellent podcast. The description reads:

The World Of The Framers: A Christian Nation?

It has become commonplace in American political discourse for Christian evangelicals to assert that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" and that in recent decades secularists have gained control and distorted our nation's founding traditions and values. In this lecture, Professor Geoffrey Stone examines the beliefs of the Framers on this question. What did they think about Christianity, about the role of Christianity in the American nation, and about the relationship between religion generally and self-governance? The answers to these questions are important not only to constitutional interpretation, but even more fundamentally to an understanding of who we are -- and who we are supposed to be -- as a nation. Geoffrey Stone is Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School. This talk was recorded April 21, 2008 as part of the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series.

Read more...

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Although I'm deeply concerned for the future of America -- particularly for the lack of respect for individual rights in all corners of the culture -- I'm deeply grateful to live in a country with a tradition of respect for a person's choice in basic beliefs, including those concerning religion. So tomorrow, I will openly celebrate Thanksgiving as a purely secular holiday, in the company of my other openly secular friends, without a prayer to God heard at any time. In many other times and places past, that would not have been possible.

For that liberty, I thank the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, particularly for the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Read more...

Striking a Nerve

My letter to the editor published in The Oklahoman on August 15th must have struck a nerve, as five (!!) letters were printed in response on August 22nd. To refresh your memory, here's my letter:

Thu August 14, 2008
Kern seeking to destroy protective wall

Regarding "Kern vows to fight for morals in government; The legislator's anti-gay remarks drew ire earlier this year" (news story, Aug. 6): State Rep. Sally Kern describes herself as a "cultural warrior for Judeo-Christian values." Such claims should raise alarm bells for patriotic Americans. A free society can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Bible doesn't uphold capitalism, nor support our individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It demands only that we suffer and sacrifice in obedience to God's will.

Individual rights are based on the objective requirements of human life in society. A person must be free to act on his own rational, independent judgment -- without forcible interference from others -- to survive and flourish. The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. For a government to do anything else -- including promote religion -- is tyranny. That's why a free society must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, build "a wall of separation" between church and state.

Kern and her fellow culture warriors seek to destroy that protective wall, thereby paving the way for a repressive theocracy. In the name of freedom, they must be opposed at every step.

Diana Hsieh, Sedalia, Colo.

Hsieh is founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, which supports homosexual rights and opposes restrictions on abortion, tax exemptions for churches and government-sanctioned faith-based initiatives.

Here are the five replies:

Foundation of our freedom

Diana Hseih (Your Views, Aug. 14) displays her ignorance of the Bible, U.S. history and current world events. What country not founded on biblical values has ever been free? The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't come from government but from our Creator. The "wall of separation" between church and state that Thomas Jefferson referred to in an 1802 letter to a Baptist church is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from government interference.

Christians founded this nation and Christians established the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and societal tolerance (within limits) that permit Hsieh to live without interference from others today. If Hseih thinks she'd be better off in a non-Christian nation, she's free to travel to places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China or North Korea to see how women, minorities and gays are treated where other worldviews dominate.

Will and Cindy Wright, Oklahoma City

Tyranny anyone?

Diana Hsieh (Your Views, Aug. 14) says that a free society can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles. David Barton of Wallbuilders Inc. has done extensive research on America's founding and the men involved. He says that out of all Founding Fathers, only about a dozen weren't Christians. Hsieh says a free society "must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, build 'a wall of separation' between church and state." The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson also said that the Bible is a good book and every student should study it. He founded the University of Virginia and felt that the Bible should be part of the mandatory curriculum in the state university.

Hsieh says for government to "promote" religion is tyranny. Daniel Webster said that whatever makes men good Christians makes them good citizens. Is this tyranny?

Kay Simpson, Oklahoma City

Name those principles

Diana Hseih (Your Views, Aug. 14) makes the absurd statement that a free society "can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles." If this great country wasn't founded on Judeo-Christian principles, would Hseih please identify the principles on which it was founded? Would she kindly point to a country that has more freedom than our free and happy land?

I'm a firm believer in the adage that if ain't broke, don't fix it. That's how it was until the Supreme Court discovered that the Constitution says our kids may not pray in our schools. Taxes, speed limits, declaring war and all those sorts of things are the business of government. Morality and religion are the province of our churches, and the government should not but does mess with them.

Hseih is wrong when she says this great nation is in danger of becoming a theocracy like the Muslim countries. The real danger is that the government might make us into a godless nation like Communist Russia was. That would evidently suit Hseih just fine.

Joe Freeh, Oklahoma City

A firm belief

Diana Hsieh (Your Views, Aug. 14) is misguided. The "wall of separation" that Thomas Jefferson spoke about in the letter to the Danbury Baptist congregation was referring to the fact that Congress is not to institute a state religion, such as England, Germany and Italy, nor is Congress to interfere with our right to practice our religion, whether it's Christianity on my part or atheism on yours. One of the definitions of faith is a firm belief in something for which there's no proof. Can you prove to me that what you believe happened that caused the beginning of the world is any more correct than mine?

Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Founding Fathers understood that rights (such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) come with responsibilities. The order in which they put these was important -- after all you can't have liberty without life and you can't have the pursuit of happiness without the freedom to pursue it.

Douglas Thompson, Oklahoma City

Thompson is serving his country in Iraq.

Historical ignorance

Diana Hsieh (Your Views, Aug. 14) shows her historical ignorance of Thomas Jefferson's famous "separation of church and state" phrase. In Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists dated Jan. 1, 1802, he assured them that they didn't need to be afraid of the government interfering with their free exercise of religion. Jefferson believed that God, not the government, was the author and source of our rights and that the government was to be prohibited from intruding on those rights.

The "wall" of the Danbury Baptist letter was not to limit public religious activities; instead it was to limit the power of government involvement in religious expression. The Congressional Record documents the months of debates of the 90 Founding Fathers who structured the First Amendment during which not one (Jefferson included!) ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." Wouldn't you think that if this had been their intent for the First Amendment, at least one of those 90 men would have mentioned that phrase? None did.

Jay McCurry, Edmond

(I'm surprised that the newspaper didn't correct the misspelling of my name in many of those letters, but perhaps they didn't notice that "Hseih" is not the same as "Hsieh".) I know that some supporters of the Coalition for Secular Government wrote good responses to those letters. I hope that the newspaper is willing print one or two of them.

Read more...

Our Secular Constitution

The Christian theocrats are attempting to transform America into a thoroughly Christian nation in her laws, institutions, and mores. They demand that abortion be banned, solely based on their tenuous interpretation of scripture. They vigorously campaign against any attempt to allow loving homosexual couples to secure their bond by law. They demand that all television be prudishly "family-friendly," without a boob or butt in sight.

One of the most common arguments of these theocrats for their coveted religious transformation is based on an appeal to our Founding Fathers. The Founders, they say, were devout Christians seeking to establish a Christian nation. The Founders, they say, never envisioned anything like the secularism of today's society and government.

Most Americans feel some reverence for our Founding Fathers, yet they know little of the actual words and deeds of the men who shaped our country: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and others. (Thanks, government schools!) So too many American can be bamboozled by these claims of the theocrats. The snippets so often quoted by Christians to support their case are usually ripped from their proper context, then interpreted through Christian lenses. Any mention of God is read with an endorsement of Christianity and Christian government. The deism of many prominent Founders is ignored, as is their strident opposition to any kind of promotion of religion by the government.

However, the most clear evidence that the Founders intended their new government to be independent of any religion is found in three places in the Constitution:

First, the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice what is missing from that basic statement of purpose: God. Moreover, the Constitution attempts to secure the very kind of this-worldly goods like peace, security, and justice that Jesus admonishes his followers to ignore. And it does not aim to promote the otherworldly goods like the salvation of one's soul that Jesus admonishes his followers to seek above all else.

Second, Article 6:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So all government officials are required to uphold the Constitution, yet none can be subject to any kind of religious test. They cannot be required to espouse belief in Jesus, nor even belief in God, nor even in some vague Higher Power. Surely, if the Founders wished to create a Christian nation, they would have required that government officials be Christian.

Third, the First Amendment :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment forbids the government from interfering in people's religious lives, whether by forbidding or promoting certain religious beliefs and practices. If a Christian nation was their aim, then the Founders should have required the government to promote Christianity -- not forbidden it from doing so.

In future blog posts, I will say more on the relationship of the Founding Fathers to religion, as the half-truths and outright lies spread by the theocrats must be combated. Yet it's amazing that a clear look at just these few passages from the Constitution wholly undermine their basic claim that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Read more...