Liberalism, Libertarianism and Neo-libertarianism

Or how an otherwise intelligent segment of American society has swallowed hook... line and sinker

Our Founders intent was to create a society based on their personal belief that human happiness was intimately connected with personal freedom… and joined at the hip with personal responsibility. Thus we find as the basis of our Constitution the “twin pillars” of limited government and the protection of individual rights. This author is fond of our Founders’ work, which would make me a classic liberal. The authors of our Constitution were called liberals. Folks just like them in Continental Europe are still called liberal. Over here we're often called “libtard” and “socialist”.

It is just unfortunate that the definitions of some words change across educational and political spectra to end up meaning whatever uninformed folk want them to mean… kinda like what they do with the Qur’an or the Bible.  

In this country to be known as liberal is to be branded with a sinful belief in big government and the welfare state… while folks calling themselves libertarian tend to claim the mantle of what was classically known as liberalism… and they do so with a distinctly draconian twist.

In fairness, the other political descriptors have suffered similar meaning morphing. Neither “conservative” nor “liberal” mean what they once meant. But It isn't those “wings” this author wishes to chap. The deluded neo-libertarian is in my sights tonight.

From this author’s perspective, contemporary libertarianism (neo-libertarianism) is a pie-in-the-sky hallucination of a thankfully tiny segment of the population that they should be allowed unfettered individualism even at the expense of our others... and even though the blood, sweat and tears of those very others helped pave the way for our deluded neo-lib to get where he wants to go and gain whatever he wants to get without having to pay his share of societal maintenance. 

It doesn't matter to the neo-con that the contribution of civil society in the form of taxes paid have funded the paved roads, water and sewer systems, public safety, health and education… because we knew those things would bring benefit and progress to our society.

These things don't matter to our neo-con, because yes indeed… he certainly *did* build it himself… and by gawd his kids have already graduated so why should he have to pay taxes to school those grubby urchins churned out by the dozens on the other side of the tracks?

Hell! That’s socialism!

Unfortunately, this *is* modern libertarianism… or more accurately… neo-libertarianism. These selfish fools strive so mightily to take on the mantle of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Morris and Henry, yet they haven't a clue as to just how offensive that idea would be to those men. 

Our neo-cons know not what they do and certainly don’t know what they are saying. They want so badly to keep what they've got that that they are willing to sacrifice the future of society and even that of their children. They expend copious fallacies in their quixotic effort to justify nothing less than base selfishness.

The inverse of neo-libertarianism is classic libertarianism… which actually agrees with our neo-con in the belief that every individual has the right to live life in any way they choose up to certain limits. But depending on which of the various definitions to which you subscribe, that pretty much is where the comparison diverges. 

Unlike the neo-con, the classic libertarian cares for the safety and security of society and of the individuals from which that society is composed. A classic libertarian would be willing to defend the right to life, liberty, and property-rights for all individuals. The classic libertarian recognizes the need for a government to protect and provide security of society, while interfering in individual liberties to the least extent possible. The classic libertarian has no argument with a government established “safety net” for folks falling on hard times under circumstances not of their own making... because they recognize that society is composed of individuals and that at any given time it might be them needing that safety net.

The classic libertarian recognizes the need for the rule of law yet feels that individuals should be allowed the freedom of opportunity, and allowed to form relationships without the interference of law.  They wish the law to confine the use of force by the government to very narrow structures, as it might be when wielded against miscreants who have themselves employed force… as in the case of murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, fraud and a few other cases.

- - -

Lets look at a few “dictionary” definitions of libertarianism…

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

'The heart of liberalism is the absence of coercion by others; consequently, the liberal state's commitment to protecting liberty is, essentially, the job of ensuring that citizens do not coerce each other without compelling justification.'

The Libertarian Reader edited by David Boaz (Free Press, 1997)

'It is easier to define libertarian ideas than to agree on a proper name for those ideas. The advocacy of individual liberty against state power has gone by many names over the century . . . In the first years of the 19th century the term liberalism came into widespread use in France and Spain and it soon spread, but by the end of that century the meaning had undergone a remarkable change. From the leave us alone philosophy, it had come to stand for advocacy of substantial government intervention in the marketplace. Eventually people began to call the philosophy of individual rights, free markets and limited government - the philosophies of Locke, Smith and Jefferson - classical liberalism.

For classical liberals, liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live their life - including employing their labour and their capital - as they see fit.'

What it means to be a Libertarian by Charles Murray (Broadway Books, 1997)

'The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights . . . We believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.
The correct word for my view of the world is liberal. "Liberal" is the simplest Anglicization of the Latin liber, and freedom is what classical liberalism is all about. The writers of the nineteenth century who expounded on this view were called liberals. In Continental Europe they still are . . . . But the words mean what people think they mean, and in the United States the unmodified term liberal now refers to the politics of an expansive government and the welfare state. The contemporary alternative is libertarian . . .'

Social Justice: Fraud or Fair Go? edited by Marlene Goldsmith, chapter by Andrew Norton (Menzies Research Centre, 1998)

'Classical liberals have a strong commitment to individual freedom. This commitment has, I believe, two sources. First there is commitment to freedom as an intrinsic value, as something important in itself. One idea here, an idea that finds support in the psychological literature, is that well-being is associated with a sense of being in control of one's life. Being coerced to do something, even if it is something you would do anyway if you had a choice, is bad for your well-being.

The second source of classical liberalism's commitment to individual freedom comes from its recognition of freedom as an instrumental value, as a value that leads to well being even if it does not of itself provide it. This is mostly an argument about institutions, and especially the claim that the market, a device which coordinates action by facilitating voluntary interaction, has enormous power to enhance well-being. ...'

On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism by Norman Barry (Macmillan, 1986)

'The classical liberals, from Hume and Smith through to Hayek, are concerned with the construction of a social order in which individual liberty can be maximized; social order and liberty do indeed develop conterminously. Principles and processes emerge (almost accidentally) from individual action but the individual is never abstracted from social processes, whether as a rights-bearer or, even, as a utility-bearer.'

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman (Penguin Books, 1981)

'Our society is what we make it. We can shape our institutions. Physical and human characteristics limit the alternatives available to us. But none prevent us, if we will, from building a society that relies primarily on voluntary cooperation to organize both economic and other activity, a society that preserves and expands human freedom, that keeps government in its place, keeping it our servant and not letting it become our master.'

- - -

Pretty much a scatter shot of definitions speaking to just how difficult it is to pin political or philosophical labels on others. In the end it comes down to a great debate much like the contest between the philosophies of Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine… between the politics of progress and that of conservation... with neither fully addressing the real threats faced by our society.

But it is probably too late in the progress of this nation to turn our sights on the real threat, regardless of political bent. Our thoroughly liberal Founders, particularly Jefferson, were never so confused. They knew exactly from whence the biggest threat to our society would come. Their fears and predictions have materialized, and just as they feared, American society is suffering dramatically because of it.

Our modern neo-con is the real life… in your face representation of that fear.

###

Maybe not so smart

Those religious right dominionists in the Republican party, including Rick Perry, Sarah Pain, Michelle Bachmann and even Mick Huckabee would do well to harken back to the experience of our second President. Advocating for a “Christian Nation” may provide short term popularity, but over the long run it is not real smart. 

“It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has allarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, &c, &c, &c, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment as a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whispers ran through them [all the sects] “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgiving. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion. This wild Letter, I very much fear, contains seeds of an Ecclesiastical History of the U.S. for a Century to come.”

Read the full meal deal HERE

###

Religious Right Refudiated

Adullam Films

Filmmaker Christian Pinto, ironically, is an evangelical Christian. He is also the founder and owner of Adullam Films, which has produced several films promoting the Biblical point of view. Interestingly, he has recently produced a documentary refuting the Religious Right's Christian nation claims.

The three-hour DVD, The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers, includes details of the early contributions of Thomas Paine in the formation of this republic. The film provides documentary evidence that our Constitution’s call for separation of religion and government is exactly as Thomas Jefferson describes.

Pinto also shows that the lies and distortions offered by David Barton and his ilk are nothing other than a covert effort at subversion of our founder’s and our Constitution’s intent.

Thomas Paine was the foremost promoter of Deism in his time, doing more to promote that philosophy than anyone in history. Pinto quotes from Paine's most important works, Common Sense, and The Age of Reason, demonstrating beyond doubt that Paine was far from Christian. Pinto further draws direct lines tying Paine's influence to the Revolutionary War, and to our Founders, most of whom were also Deists.

The latter parts of the documentary provides good resource for those desiring to challenge the religious right’s attempts at historical revisionism, showing it to be a complete subversion of our Constitution, and that the attempts at creating a Christian theocracy are based upon lies. In this part of the film Mr. Pinto points an accusing finger specifically to WallBuilders founder, David Barton.

Barton is well known for distorting American history and misleading Americans with his revisionism. The WallBuilders website is rife with distortion and outright lies. In this film, Barton's assertions that our Founders were Christian, and that our republic was built on Biblical principle, is roundly debunked. This documentary goes further, doing a good job of showing how the neocon lies pose a real danger to our freedoms, our country, and threaten our Constitution.

In many ways the documentary is quite good, but certainly not perfect. While Pinto cites Thomas Paine's works, revealing his Deistic beliefs and detailing Paine's influence on our Declaration of Independence, his Christian evangelical bias against Paine’s Deism are obvious. As an example, Pinto unnecessarily cites age-old and unproven gossip implicating Paine as participating in a ménage à trois with a French friend and his wife. This adds nothing to the conversation and serves only as a distraction.

More so than Deism Pinto focuses on the influence of Freemasonry on our Founders. Both Paine and Jefferson were undeniably Deists, but neither were Freemasons. Pinto offers no evidence, yet speculates that they may have been. Inversely, Freemasons George Washington and Ben Franklin were also Deists, and Pinto documents these facts quite well.

More speculation presented by Pinto is that Benjamin Franklin, while living in London, may have been involved in Satanic sacrifice while a member of The Hellfire Club. The Hellfire Club was little more than a 16th century swinger's club that spent more time conduct orgies and mocking traditional religion than conducting satanic rituals. While it is documented that Franklin was a member and undoubtedly participated in the debauchery, there is nothing more than speculation linking him to the rumored sacrifice ceremonies.

You probably shouldn’t expect that an evangelical Christian would produce a film without some attempt to proselytize. Pinto does not disappoint, but oddly enough the proselytizing is done in a way that seems to fit in with the documentary and can easily be overlooked.

In spite of Pinto’s Christian bias this documentary is well worth the $30.00 price tag. The producer has compiled an impressive arsenal of resources for Americans and true constitutionalists in their quest to keep our nation true to our founding roots.

The film trailer is on YouTube.

###

Education in Texas: A Fairy Tale

Quote from Texas Governor Rick Perry, from a recent interview in the San Angelo Standard Times.

"I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill."

H/T

This is not conservatism. Neither Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, nor even Ronald Reagan or Gerald Ford would recognize what the Grand Old Party has become. This is radical extremism cloaked in Republican clothing, practicing scientific denialism and historical revisionism on a grand scale, and this is the reason the Republican party has lost me... probably for good.

The Myth, part IV

Conclusion. Continued from The Myth, Part III

Up until now I’ve concentrated on the Deists, but there were Christians involved in the shaping of our nation. Their influence was muted compared to the ideological contributions of Jefferson, Madison and Adams, who pressed for, and gained popular approval for the formation of a secular nation.

Historian Clinton Rossiter had this to say about the composition of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and their religious views:

“[T]he gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country--the New Englanders Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, the Southerners Episcopalians, and the men of the Middle States everything from backsliding Quakers to stubborn Catholics--and most were men who could take their religion or leave it along. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim that his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit.”[i]

At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin, a representative from Maryland, wanted to include Christian language, saying that "it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." This proposal was rejected.[ii]

Our constitution was drafted as a secular document with no mention of God anywhere in it. There is only one mention of religion, and that is in the negative. "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Consider then, if the delegates had intended to establish our country as a "Christian nation,” as is claimed by Don McLeroy and so many of his ilk, why would they have inserted a statement like that in and not refer to religion anywhere else?

One would think, considering the weight of evidence, that reasonably intelligent grownups would be able to decipher that if the intention of was anything except the formation of a "Christian nation." If they had intended such, wouldn’t the document they authored have some references to the Bible, Jesus, or anything alluding to the Christian religion? Instead of expressly forbidding a religious test as a condition for holding public office, would they not have required some form of sworn allegiance to Christianity? Were our founders so clueless that they wrote a constitution that ENTIRELY FAILS to mention Christ or the Bible, when their true purpose was to create a “Christian nation?” How can there be any doubt that our founders of intended no such thing?

As further evidence, let us look at a document written during the administration of George Washington – The Treaty with Tripoli. Article 11 of the Treaty makes the fact that this country was not, and was not intended to be a “Christian nation,” specifically stating that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."[iii]

The treaty was negotiated by Joel Barlow, approved by George Washington while he was in office, and ratified by the senate under John Adams administration. As Adams signed the treaty, he added this statement: "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof."

The statement that the United States was not “founded on the Christian religion” was approved by the first two Presidents and the entirety of the Senate should dispel any and all doubts that our founders intended to create a “Christian nation,” or that there was any intent to do so.

Reason 1 – Superstition 0. Game over… or is it?

So what might be the last refuge for the fundamentalists? The logical inductive fallacy, of course.

Premise #1 – If most Americans are Christian, then America is a Christian nation.

Premise #2 – Most Americans are Christian.

Conclusion – America has always been a Christian nation.

Fundamentalists still argue that even if our founders did not purposefully establish our country as a Christian nation, our country was founded by people looking for religious liberty, and our population has always been overwhelmingly Christian, so therefore we are a Christian nation.

These are dubious assumptions. There certainly were colonists fleeing religious persecution in the old world, but history shows these very colonists established theocratic colonies as oppressive or more so than that which they fled. Heretical Quakers were exiled from the colony, and executed if they returned. So called "witches" were condemned and burned on the stake or hanged on questionable evidence. Do modern fundamentalists want a return to that kind of “Christian nation”?

The majority of the colonists were capitalists, driven by the desire for free land and profit. Monetary motives played heavily in their decision to venture into a new world. They very simply wanted to improve their economic status.

Our founders were learned men. Most colonists were peasants. So what about the religious beliefs of the general population? It certainly wasn’t as “Christian” as the fundamentalists would like you to believe – a fact that rational conservatives admit. As noted by Richard Hofstadter, some 90% of colonial Americans were “unchurched in 1790,” that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," and noted that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member."[iv]

Yet another historian, James MacGregor Burns, states that "[t]here had been a `very wintry season' for religion every where in America after the Revolution," and adds that "ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches."[v]

Scientists and historians deal with facts. Theocrats and fundamentalists play with myth. Fact paints an entirely different picture of colonial America in our formative years than the image Don McLeroy, Wendy Lowe and the rest of the gang of revisionists wish you to believe. America was not founded on "biblical principles," and Thomas Jefferson was foremost of the enlightenment philosophers – regardless of what the dogmatists on the Texas State Board of Education wishes our children to believe.

We were formed as a religiously neutral nation, and the Christian assault on that freedom has never ceased. The Fundamentalists are winning, but the voices of reason refuse to surrender.

The church has striven to retard the growth of knowledge and reason since the origin of recorded history. Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, and a host of others have been denied, silenced or murdered in the name of dogma. Our founders were intent on reversing that trend.

Christian nation? Founded on Christian principles? I think not. But compare the historian’s view of the religious beliefs of the constitutional delegates with the radically different picture currently being painted by the fundamentalist members of the Texas State Board of Education. The board, dominated by fundamentalist, right wing, revisionist, theocrats, has unfortunately found the political leverage required to flush truth down the toilet, rewriting recorded history with superstition, fantasy and lies.

The textbook issue is in my part of the world so I have made it my battle. The world is laughing at us, and Texas has become the punch line of editorial cartoons. There are intelligent, reasonable people in Texas, and we’re tired of this crap. We’re fighting back.

You can join me if you want, by visiting the following sites and joining the cause. We’d appreciate any help you can offer. Donations gladly accepted.

Just Educate!

The Thomas Jefferson Movement

P.S. If you still believe that America was founded as a "Christian nation," you're reading the wrong blog.

~~

---

[i] Rossiter, C., 1787: The Grand Convention, W. W. Norton & Company

[ii] Kurkland, P. Lerner, R, The Founders’ Constitution, University of Chicago Press

[iii] Miller, H., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed., Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office

[iv] Hofstadter, R., Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, Alfred A. Knopf Publishing

[v] Burns, J.M., The American Experiment - Vineyard of Liberty, Vol. 1, Vintage Books

~~

The Myth, part III

Continued from part II

Thomas Jefferson received a great deal of coverage in Parts I and II, and for good reason. The gentleman from Virginia is the most published of our founders, and his influence on the formation of our constitutional republic was profound. There is just too much proof of Jefferson's resistance to any religious influence in our constitution to be denied.

It is for this reason the Texas State Board of Education wishes to omit Jefferson from Texas public school curriculum. Theocrats cannot weave the deception necessary to convince children that our country is a "Christian nation" so long as the truth about Jefferson stands in the way.

The assault on religious liberty is ever-present in this country, and began almost a century before the colonies split from King George. Jefferson's resistance, and Madison's as well, are documented fact. So what of the others? Where is truth to be found? In this missive I shall discuss one of them in depth; General George Washington.

We know that some religious sects fled persecution in the old world only to construct oppressive religious-based colonies in America. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was established by Puritans, Pennsylvania by Quakers, Maryland by Roman Catholics, while the southern states were somewhat Episcopalian. Some established severe laws indistinguishable from those they abhorred in their former homes.

As our founders debated the verbiage of our constitution, fundamentalists worked to influence the process and hoped to couch the language of the document in religious terms. Our founders, cognizant of the history of religious repression, consistently rejected this notion. The attempts to insert Christianity into our government existed in those times, and have never ceased. When George Washington died, the response from the religious crowd was immediate.

The legacy of our first President came under assault by Christians intent on claiming him as one of their own immediately upon his 1799 death. Proving Washington to be a religionist would have been a huge feather in their cap. This effort was based largely on the grounds that Washington had regularly attended services with his wife at an Episcopal Church, and had served as a vestryman in the church.

On August 13, 1835, a Christian activist by the name of “Colonel Mercer” wrote to Bishop William White, who had been one of the rectors at the church Washington had attended. In the letter, Mercer asked if "Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal Church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all..."[i]

White replied two days later, that, “In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you.”[ii]

In his Annals of the American Pulpit, The Rev. William B. Sprague wrote a biographical sketch of James Abercrombie, the other pastor of the church Washington attended. Sprague quoted Abercrombie as confirming White's reply to Mercer.

One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience is especially worthy of record; In an 1831 letter by Abercrombie written to a friend, he pens: "With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation--always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants--she invariably being one--I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it."[iii]

Abercrombie further explained that he had heard through a senator that Washington had discussed this reprimand with others, and had told them that "as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station.”[iv]

Abercrombie then said that Washington "never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday."[v] Reverend Abercrombie's stated pointedly, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."[vi]

Writing in the Episcopal Recorder, E.D. Neill refuted the Christian revisionists, stating that Washington "was not a communicant, notwithstanding all the pretty stories to the contrary, and after the close of the sermon on sacramental Sundays, [he] had fallen into the habit of retiring from the church while his wife remained and communed."[vii]

It is apparently true that Washington, for several years, served as a vestryman, as had his father before him. The vestry at that time was also the county court, so in order to have certain political powers, it was necessary for one to be a vestryman.

Thomas Jefferson was a vestryman for a while. This was no admission of faith. Bishop William Meade wrote in an 1857 letter, “Even Mr. Jefferson and [Mr.] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence.”[viii]

The Rev. Bird Wilson was only a few years removed from being a contemporary of our founding fathers. In a sermon to his flock, Wilson stated that "the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity."

Wilson continued by saying, “When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution.” (Emphasis mine).[ix]

Rev. Wilson, in an interview with a gentleman by the name of Owen, said "I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges him self as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."[x]

Finally, in 1987, Washington was profiled by historian Clinton Rossiter. Mr. Rossiter writes that, “The last and least skeptical of these rationalists [Washington] loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the ‘Great Author,’ ‘Almighty Being,’ ‘invisible hand,’ and ‘benign parent of the human race,’ but apparently could not bring himself to speak the word ‘God’.”[xi]

Our second President, John Adams was a Unitarian who flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote, "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In a letter to Samuel Miller on July 8, 1820, Adams expressed unbelief of Protestant Calvinism. "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

In "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], Adams wrote that "[T]he United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

Later in the same document, Adams says, "[T]hirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."[xii]

In Part IV we shall discuss those among our founders who were Christians, and their contributions to our Constitutional Republic.

~~

---

[i] Remsberg, J Six Historic Americans

[ii] IBID, p. 104

[iii] IBID, pp. 104-105

[iv] IBID, p. 105

[v] IBID, p. 105

[vi] IBID, p. 110

[vii] IBID, p. 107

[viii] Meade, W, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1857, I, p. 191

[ix] Remsberg, p. 120

[x] IBID, pp. 121-122

[xi] Rossiter, C, 1787: The Grand Convention, WW. Norton & Co., 1987, p. 36

[xii] Sweeley, J.W., Rights, Liberties, and Social Justice: How America Lost Its Moral Authority, Blue Dolphin Publishing

~~

The Myth, part II

Continued from part I

In Part I, we discussed the majority religious philosophy of our founders... Deism.

Deism was a philosophy widely accepted by the enlightened intelligentsia of the American Revolutionary era. Many of those who founded this country, especially the revolutionary leaders, can be counted among those philosophers. Certainly there were Christians among our founding fathers, but even the majority of those men recognized, or were convinced of the need for the separation of church and state.

Colonial Deists believed in human reason as the most reliable means of solving social and political problems. They acknowledged a some sort of creator who removed itself entirely from our universe after creating it, never interfering with natural or human affairs. The obvious consequence of these beliefs was rejection of Christian doctrine.

The philosophy of Deism was well described by Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason, a book that rankled the theists of the time and caused Paine to be tossed into a French prison. The nation that had once revered Paine as the father of the American Revolution, turned its back on this great philosopher. To this day, many mistakenly believe Paine was atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of Deism. Unfortunately, most Christians do not recognize the difference.

We've discussed Thomas Jefferson in depth, and Jefferson was only one of many early American Deists. Others were George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe. Christian revisionists try to convince us that these Founders and others were Christian, and that they intended to establish this country on "biblical" or “Judeo-Christian principles,” but history simply does not support that view. The overwhelming majority of the men and women instrumental in founding this nation were in no sense Christians… nor theists of any stripe. We shall try to discuss each of our founders to some degree, pointing to evidence refuting these theistic claims.

Early in his first term as President, Jefferson declared his philosophy of church and state separation in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Before sending that letter, Jefferson asked Attorney General Levi Lincoln to review it. Lincoln was a contemporary of the founders, and he was also a Deist. Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the letter a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

If this was indeed Jefferson's wish, he was successful. In two cases before SCOTUS, Reynolds vs. the United States (1879) and Everson vs. Board of Education (1947), the Court cited the Danbury letter to be an authoritative declaration of the scope of the First Amendment. Both courts agreed that the intention of the First Amendment was to erect “a wall of separation between church and state.” [1]

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson's political ally and close friend, was as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in which he offered fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion. This paper is considered a landmark document in political philosophy, and was cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman (1990).

The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly in 1789 when the Assembly adopted the statute of religious freedom. The preamble to the bill, crafted by Jefferson, said that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

The Madison/Jefferson statute was far more specific than the establishment clause of our Constitution, stating: "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities".

Jefferson realized that legislation enacted by an elected body could be later repealed. For that reason he ended the statute with a statement of contempt for any body that would attempt to negate the statute: 

"And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." (Emphasis mine).

The evidence appears irrefutable the neither Jefferson nor Madison were Christian, they intent to found our country on Christian values, and they wished to prevent future lawmakers from compromising the secular nation they helped craft. 

So what about the religious philosophies of our other founders? We will continue the discussion of The Myth in Part III.

~~

---

[1] Boston, R, Myths and Mischief, Church and State, March 1992