|
|
|
Faith and Life
Discussion List Comment:
The Ten Commandments ought to be in every town square and every public
building, IMHO. this nation and this government were founded on principles
from the Bible and the 10 commandments, by Christian men who believed
in freedom and liberty!
The US has a heritage of Christianity. It is appropriate and worthwhile
to recognize that. Oh, and by the way, this doesn't violates the "separation
of church and state clause." Those that claim that it does don't really
understand where we've come from and what that really means.
Thoughts in Response:
Since September 11, 2001, I have read many discussions
focusing attention on American history and political philosophy. A vital
part of our mutual cultural interests reflected in those various discussions
is a concern for the moral values in this society.
I share this interest and concern. This has led me to reflect some on the principles of American origin, which I try to keep in review all the time.
Biblical Foundations?
================
I hear many declamations on the biblical foundations of the American Republic.
I am sometimes puzzled by some of the claims when I review first-hand the
actual language of some of the founding documents.
There is a difference between the Christian beliefs and motivations of some
of the early settlers (the Puritans come to mind) and the philosophical basis
of the new American republic, which was established almost 200 years later!
I think it is important to distinguish between the Christian, or at least
biblical sources of thought in the philosophies behind the American revolution
and establishment of the new republic, and the alleged attempt to establish
a religious republic. The latter certainly is not the same as the former.
Sources and Intents
===============
Aside from that, the actual sources of thought are to be found in the Enlightenment philosophers and a new concept of the natural world, which led Western thought to diverge from the traditional theocratic concept common not only to the West but many other traditional cultures. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are not your classic Christians!
The founding principles, and indeed the documents, were strongly, firmly
religious, one might say even biblical. This, however, is quite
different from the claim that this country was founded on the
Bible or as a Christian country.
In fact, it was devout Christian leaders who worked the hardest to be
sure there was no tie between formal religious organizations and the fledgling
government of the young republic. Likewise, religious thought
and belief were central to the public arena in that era. This value
is now in danger of being lost in a reaction against formal religion
in our time.
The founding philosophy distinguished between religious institutions and personal religious convictions. The former was feared, the latter honored and protected.
Religion in the Public Arena
=====================
This was a bold new experiment in society and government, new to the world,
to history and to political or moral philosophy. It is not appropriate
to revise history just to support a current point of view. The new American Republic was established as a secular state where power was centered in the citizenry, religious instituitions were prevented from using the powers of the state for coercion.
Likewise the state was prohibited from limiting the activities of
any religious institution. This preserved access to the public arena for all views, including religious views.
I find it amusing, though troubling, that some argue today that the purpose of the founding documents was to eliminate religious views or principles from the public arena. On the contrary, the church was set free, and all individuals were acknowledged as free and able to speak on any topic (including religion) in the public arena. The government was specifically prohibited from proscribing the expression of personal views, including religious veiws.
Religious individuals and institutions were required thus to win others
to their point of view by discussions and persuasion, not coercion,
as had been done in the early colonies. The constitution did not
promise freedom from religious opinion, though religious harassment
would be monitored just as any other form of harassment.
It is unconstitutional to dismiss or prohibit a perspective or opinion
simply because its foundation is "religious." Likewise, religion
was not to be the primary factor in deciding any question in this new republic.
Naturalistic Enlightenment Philosophy
============================
We cannot go into any detail here on the founding documents, but the documents are publicly available to all, as close as the local library, or on the Internet. The language of the founding documents actually studiously avoided specifically Christian terminology.
Reading from a biblical, neo-traditional perspective, the language may be
compatible. But if we simply read our current biblicist concepts back
into that creative language, we dishonor the facts of the matter.
The worldview appearing in those founding documents arises out of the new
Enlightenment scientific concept that the world has an objective structure,
and moral principles are then likewise derived from this constant structure.
The worldview is a scientific Rationalism, not a devotional Christian theism.
This is not to say that this scientific concept led directly to an abandonment of traditional moral values, but rather that the basis of society and morality was gradually shifting from a religious church-oriented foundation to a naturalistic concept in which even moral laws were thought to exist irrespective of any divine action.
Deists followed a Divine philosophical concept of God rather than classical
Christian faith, though many were active Christians and certainly the Bible
was their primary devotional book. It was the only one available in
that era. Some of these were active in established churches, others
eschewed the institutional church. You can get the details from history
sources. Benjamin Franklin was one of the noted Deists.
Thomas Jefferson was
suspicious of established religion, ironically one of the reasons he was so
influenced by the separatist Baptists, who feared established religion and
the persecutions they had suffered at the hands of an established church using
the power of the state as coercion against them as dissenters.
Deists and the Bible
===============
I have heard a comment that Benjamin Franklin could not have been a Deist
because he read the Bible. Well, of course, he read the Bible.
Most of the Deists did. It was the only devotional or religious source
book available to that culture. Many Deists were active Christians. Compare today some of the actual ideas many church members have about God. These are actually very different from the official Christian idea or even more different from the biblical concept of God.
Of course the Deists used the Bible as their sacred text and devotional
sources, and being Deist did not exclude one from being Christian.
But it was philosophical principles inspired by the Enlightenment and John
Locke's and Rousseau's philosophies that guided the thinking of the New World.
Christian expression of some kind was the only viable alternative open to
folks at that time.
State, Church and Political Power
========================
An important value in the new society was to protect citizens by prohibiting
the use of state apparatus to foster interests of any particular church.
This was by design, because a major focus was to avoid the domination
of the state apparatus by any particular organized religious organization.
Early settlers wanted to get out from under the domination of the state-church
apparatus in England, but then succeeded in establishing their own similarly
repressive theocratic dictatorships on their subjects.
Baptistic free-thinkers (the extreme liberal-radicals of their day) like
Roger Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin resisted this and proposed
alternatives based on a new political-metaphysical way of thinking. They
worked hard to avoid the re-incumberment of the church with the state and
vice versa. It was Thomas Jefferson who, reportedly in correspondence
with a Baptist congregation, coined the term "wall of separation between church
and state."
Some of the debaters in the early state congresses and the continental congress
were indeed men of faith and devout, including church leaders.
In general the church leaders argued why their denomination ought to be acknowledged
as the official state church (while many would still allow for the
free exercise of alternative churches), receiving the special privileges and
financial benefits from this. More suspicious and radical thinkers,
like the Baptist and Deists fought together to keep that from happening.
Keep in mind that motives were mixed and intentions were clouded by many
considerations. The more radical elements were influenced by the French
Revolution, a totally anti-religious movement, reacting in all its gory
disgust against the corrupt French Roman Catholic hierarchical collaboration
with the Royal family and greedy nobility to accumulate wealth and power at
the expense of the poorest and most disadvantaged elements of the French society.
Avoiding Religious and Political Extremes
===============================
The more philosophical thinkers, Deists and others influenced by the Enlightenment
vision of a new free world, avoided both the extremes of the French fiasco,
and even maintained their cultural loyalty to the Homeland and its cultural
and religious heritage.
Keep in mind that both England (and the whole United Kingdom to some extent)
were still painfully recovering from the bloody "Christian" Revolution established
by the Reformation Theology radicals in the Reformed (Presbyterian) movement
in England (called the Puritans), who violently took control of the reigns
and infrastructure of the British political system, killed the King and his
close supporters, plunging the kingdom into a dark era of bloody religious
repression matched only by the equally bloody political repression of those
not within the inner "religious" circle of this "divinely-appointed" reform
group.
It was so bad that the people revolted against their "saviors," who had
become even worse than their previous oppressors, and invited a caretaker
monarch to come over from Europe to reestablish a royal balance. The
"legitimate" royal succession finally fell upon a German branch of the family,
who knew little and cared less about those troublesome colonies across the
water, leading to renewed dissatisfaction in the New World.
No one wanted either the previous horrible Anglican or Catholic religious
dictatorship nor the equally horrid "Protestant" bloody dictatorship in the
tender new land. Thus overtly institutional Christian identities
and foundations were studiously avoided, while the highest of moral
principles, including Biblical guidance -- honored by both radical Christian
leaders like the Baptist and other Separatists, as well as the Deists who
were acutely aware of the dreaded alternatives they tiptoed between in the
volatile American atmosphere -- went into a high vision of orderly, moral
society defined for the mutual and common good.
Religious Foundations?
=================
It would be correct to say that Christian principles played a large part
in the establishment of the new, rebellious political experiment that became
"America." But America was never intended to be Christian nation.
I do not see this intent declared in any of the founding documents.
Religious motivations for free exercise of religion is in no way the same
as the limitation of the state to be a Christian state.
The United States constitution insures freedom of religion, without specifying
it must be Christian. It is an individual and family decision, not a
state decision. Differences in individuals or families lead to differences
in relgion and religoius observance.
It was "Christian" they wanted to get away from, for as far as they had
experienced -- both philosopher and Baptist dissenter alike -- "Christianity"
represented the worst the society had experienced. In this regard "Christian
faith" is not the same thing as "Christianity." It was those
with strong Christian faith who fought hardest to prevent America
from becoming a "Christian" nation. The state was not allowed
to use the power of religion to coerce its citizens. This was the
center of the American experiment.
Yes, I do think it might, on the other hand, well be argued that basic biblical
concepts like the 10 Commandments were considered a basic value in the moral
and legal system of the new republic. But, no, this is not the same as having
a religious republic.
They rightly tried to keep the firm moral base of biblical principles, without
establishing a religious society which would get trapped in the administrative
web of power and control they had seen in the "empowered" churches -- where
the power of the state could coerce conscience, religious or moral, and the
power of the church could control the force of society for its own institutional
benefits. The common weal was in focus for the first time!
Free Church in a Free Society
======================
This was America. Because this vision of a free church in a free country
gives me the freedom to speak out without fear (which needs to be
preserved and defended as well, and needs attention right now), and requires
me to be knowledgeable and vigilant as others likewise exercise their protected
freedom to proclaim and attempt to convince me of their beliefs.
It is the unique contribution of America to the stream of world political
history that we are most free when we can affirm each other's right to
differ and agree together to accept the diversity necessary to ensure
the freedom to exchange the full range of ideas in the private and
the public arenas.
I agree with you and many others that the latter is now in danger of loss
or at least damage. This should not, however, blind us to the true
historical situation and values which truly and in fact did actually cause
us to be as a nation.
Diversity: Exercising and Defending Freedom
===================================
Let us be vigilant in exercising our freedom to preserve it!! Differences
of opinion, self-expression and exchange of diverse ideas is a critical component
of America. For America is diversity, variety and change, exchange
and mutual commonweal and acceptance, affirmation of difference. This
is indeed a challenging type of society to manage! Suppression of unpopular
ideas is what this country was founded to prevent!
Much of this dynamic is being lost in various attempts (liberal or conservative,
it all comes out the same in the end) to blunt the differences and homogenize
the unique contributions out of the diverse streams of religious and a-religious
thought and ethnicity and culture in our modern society. Too many people
are too uncomfortable with the diversity, wherein we should -- I think --
gain courage and celebrate the wondrous beauty of God's variety in human
cultural expression.
Conviction in Diversity
=================
The atheist is my friend -- as long as he rationally and honestly proclaims
his belief that there is no Creator, and likewise honors my cry that indeed
there is -- nay, has to be -- a Creator.
The Muslim is my friend, as he cries out against the moral corruption I see
in this country, even as I, in the name of the Savior whom he sees only as
a prophet, declare that there is a higher good for all of us in God's plan
of faith in Jesus.
My Hindu neighbor and I affirm each other in our diversity even as we try
to convince each other of what we believe, and jointly fight against the
corrupting influences in the society that affect our children.
Likewise I can laugh at the ludicrous claims of the anthropomorphic descriptions
of "chance" and "nature" and other thinking, planning, guiding principles
of inanimacy that the evolutionist insists on referring to, while decrying
my simple faith that all this planning, guiding, creating and thinking was
in fact done by the loving, purposeful living God.
I can proclaim my beliefs -- and am likewise obligated to honor the beliefs
of those who disagree -- because we are free in this society. I do
not want anyone -- "Christian" or otherwise -- to take that away from me
or from my friends who believe differently from me.
OBJ
Based on comments arising in an email exchange 15 October 2002
Article developed 28 February 2003
Finalized and posted 17 March 2003
Last edited 30 November 2004
Orville Boyd Jenkins, Ed.D., Ph.D.
Copyright © Orville Boyd
Jenkins 2003
Permission granted for free
download and transmission for personal or educational use. Other rights
reserved.
| Email: orville@orvillejenkins.com |
|
|
|