44 Comments

1. Uncle Jefe:

I don’t know how many times that tears welled up in my eyes when I read McCullough’s biography of Adams, or watched that excellent series. Sometimes the tears came for what these people went through, and for the beauty of what they did…other times the tears came because of how much we’ve lost since then in terms of patriotism, common sense, and basic freedom…I watched it in the run up to the election, knowing that we were on the verge of throwing so much away. And boy, aren’t we.

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:04 am 2. JavaThread:

As we think about the s*** storm to come…
Some quotes from Adams letter to Abigail following Congres’ vote for independence
http://books.google.com/books?id=kI08AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA418&lpg=RA1-PA418&dq=%22affliction+produces+refinement%22&source=bl&ots=jXFnRWogQI&sig=XQXaFzZGIMYIaY86MHdPZ9r-H54&hl=en&ei=_xZOStLpPJGYMdnque0D&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

“It may be the will of Heaven that America will suffer calamities still more wasting, and distress yet more dreadful. If this is to be the case, it will have this good effect at least. It will inspire us with many virtues which we have not, and correct many errors, follies and vices which threaten to disturb, dishonor and destroy us. The furnace of affliction produces refinement, in States as well as individuals.
…
But I must submit all my hopes and fears to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the faith may be, I firmly believe.”

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:40 am 3. Gordon:

Uncle–I fear you’re right. Pendulums swing both ways but I fear our governmental pendulum is swinging far left and I’ll be long gone before it swings back again. Europe may be ahead of us in that regard but such things take generations.

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:43 am 4. Quelle:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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…”

It is time!

“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, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…”

It IS time!

” Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies (ie. states); and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain (ie. Our Dear Lord and Leader…The One!) is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.”

ONCE AGAIN…IT IS TIME!!!

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:46 am 5. Mark:

“John Adams”—what a great production.

It seems like “once upon a time” when we could really celebrate as a people with a sense of reverence the amazing event of 1776. The nation seems to be losing the spirit. People’s view of history now seems to be increasingly through the lens provided by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

But it’s a good day to celebrate the accomplishments of those great men of 1776, and women too. My favorite commemoration is the one written seventy years after the event by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the “Concord Hymn,” sung at the Completion of the Battle Monument, April 19, 1836:

BY the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:50 am 6. laura:

Our country’s birth still brings me to tears. Why are our founding fathers out of fashion? Their belief in the endowment of human rights by a Creator and the necessity of an independent United States is a gift and blessing that cannot be denied.
Can’t we just have McCullough write all the history textbooks taught in our schools?

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:55 am 7. Lifeofthemind:

The rot and the solution all start with unionized public education. Everyone who understands the issues involved should get themselves onto their local school boards and make sure that they are empowered to drop in unannounced and observe what is going on in classrooms. If the indoctrinators of ignorance knew that there were adult eyes on them then, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, things would start to improve.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:29 am 8. Ashen:

Happy Independence Day you beautiful bastards.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:30 am 9. Annoy Mouse:

Your government is not in the business of sharing power. It has a pretty good thing going and all it has to do to maintain a tyranny of a few is to condemn white people as racist and throw the doors open to Mexicans. Divide and conquer. It was nice having representation while it was fashionable. There is no democratic solution to this mess. Not when there is a growing population of indoctrinated and brainwashed mush coming out of our schools. The battlefield is in our institutions and our institutions are fortified with government sponsored Marxists. If we as a populace are not proud enough of our forefathers to take back education you can forget about saving our heritage. There will be a continuing doctrinal debasement of our history as a bunch of old white dudes who are thankfully dead. Your government hates you and wants you to die.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:36 am 10. NullificationNow:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes DESTRUCTIVE of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
The Hondurus model will do.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:39 am 11. Charles:

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST IMPUTED- Iustia Alienum

Romans 4:5-8 (New International Version)(written by st Paul)

5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7″Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

…………

This refers from psalm 32: 1-2 (written by king david)
1 Blessed is he
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.

2 Blessed is the man
whose sin the LORD does not count against him
and in whose spirit is no deceit.

////////////
/ Justification is forensic. We are declared, counted or reckoned to be righteous when God imputes the righteousness of Christ (an “alien righteousness”) to our account.

Hebrews 12:22-24
22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

That’s the vertical relationship

The horizontal relationship is elaborated in
Matthew 6:14-15 (New International Version)

14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

This answers to the question of how a person and a people can become self governing.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:56 am 12. Gordon:

“I would much rather the Belmont Club became an online “tactics session” site where people shared experiences about what they were doing than a classic blog where people simply expressed an opinion.”

Wretchard said this in his “reason to believe” post on 7/1 but I fear many of us–including me–were so busy admiring ourselves and congratulating each other his message didn’t register. Talk without action is only talk; comfortable, yes, but not necessarily productive.

In the words of Lenin: “What to do?” The man was evil but his writings reveal someone supremely effective and perceptive and, above all, a man of action.

Wretchard: maybe you could push this a little harder, even another website perhaps. I think many of the Clubbers are doing things–Tea Parties?–and exchanging info could be useful.

Jul 3, 2009 - 9:08 am 13. Serotorius:

You know, if it all does come unraveled and we look back like Chuck Heston at the end of the “Planet of the Apes” and wonder “How did it come to this?,” this is the video that’s going to be in a constant loop in my mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0

I’m not sure Cato (younger or older) will be the best model in the days ahead, but I don’t think I’ll ever get over hearing an American citizen use the words, “and serve my President.”

Jul 3, 2009 - 9:09 am 14. Lifeofthemind:

This is Wretchard’s house. Personally I am more comfortable if The Club was to remain club like. In my mind it is a place of deep carpets and deep leather chairs, for contemplation and Theory. Praxis belongs in another room, something with sawdust on the floor and rough hewn wood.

Jul 3, 2009 - 10:07 am 15. Wadeusaf:

A statement of the American Mind. Could such a statement be made today, from which states would it seem befitting? Massachusettes? Not likely, New York would be no different, abstaining on perhaps the most momentous decision by men on the condition of man in history. I fear Delaware would not today come hobbling in sweating in the grips of a persistent fever to cast the deciding vote.

How could such bonds to history have been so severed as to leave such a poor understanding of the cost and at what risk for our own liberty?

Jul 3, 2009 - 11:28 am 16. RCM:

OT….but Gov. Sara Palin is stepping down from her job as Governaor of Alaska.

I hope it is for a good reason…we cannot stand another Gov. Sanford situation on the conservative side.

Jul 3, 2009 - 12:52 pm 17. RCM:

If is in connection to a run for even higher office, boy, a politician that actually won’t take money for a job that she is obviously not doing, like most pols. What a breath of fresh air.

Jul 3, 2009 - 12:58 pm 18. trangbang68:

Maybe Sarah got tired of dealing with the fat gnat, Celtic Diva or Cellulose Dirtbag or whatever that ugly thing buzzing around her head was called.

I love the old movie about George M. Cohen with Jimmie Cagney hoofing and singing:

I’m a Yankee Doodle dandy,
AYankee Doodle, do or die;
A real live nephew of my Uncle Sam’s,
Born on the Fourth of July.
I’ve got aYankee Doodle sweetheart,
She’s my Yankee Doodle joy.
Yankee Doodle came to London,
Just to ride the ponies,
I am a Yankee Doodle boy.

When I was living in Alabama, I liked on the fourth to go to the little towns in the country where the whole town gathered in the square to celebrate faith and freedom. Here in Tucson, no fireworks, no real celebration (might offend La Raza or something).God bless America. Screw the Left!

Jul 3, 2009 - 1:25 pm 19. Pascal:

What with my long memory and attention to “little” details, I do not expect anyone else to take issue of what I observed in these clips, so the chore falls to me.

Left out of the reading of our Declaration of Independence was the long list of specific issues against the British despot. Given Hollywood’s penchant for things they think us peons deserve, it should not surprise anyone.

Here is a link so club members might more easily remind themselves of the specific injustices to which our country’s forebears were subjected.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

I reproduce below but one of those specific things. Hollywood is fully aware most of us have had cause to resent some one or more meddling government excess at one time or another. Those with script-writing final say know we will gradually come to resent even more as the American despot’s claws reach out, and so certainly don’t wish to remind us of such a specific that our founders endured.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Go to that site and have a ball recognizing all the excesses statism, swiftly reestablished with a vengeance on these shores, has in store for you.

Jul 3, 2009 - 1:57 pm 20. Herb:

LOTM
….and tables soaked in gun oil

Jul 3, 2009 - 2:12 pm 21. Charles:

Romans 4:5-8 (New International Version)(written by st Paul)

5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7″Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

…………

This refers from psalm 32: 1-2 (written by king david)
1 Blessed is he
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.

2 Blessed is the man
whose sin the LORD does not count against him
and in whose spirit is no deceit.

Justification is forensic. We are declared, counted or reckoned to be righteous when God imputes the righteousness of Christ (an “alien righteousness”) to our account.

Jul 3, 2009 - 3:38 pm 22. Gaffe Prices:

this one comes up a lot: At the time of the Declaration, rights were alienable, or inalienable, and whether alienable or in-alienable, rights alienable or in-alienable derived or were issued forth as such from the sovereign, the King.

Calling rights un-alienable (alone) is the same as calling rights un-deniable.

Undeniable? (un-alienable?) Not deniable by what or whom?

The State?

And not deniable (or un-alienable) in the face of what or whom? The Monarchy? the King?, with his arbitrary alienable/inalienable (deniable/undeniable) list of “rights” (derived from his discretion)?

The artistic license used in “…smacks of the pulpit..” is not,; inaccurate, especially regarding the relation between the state church, The Church of England, and the Monarchy.

The left always quotes this as if to violate one’s “unalienable” rights is an offense against the universe and (mother) nature itself (or in fact herself, (the earth mommy), when the implication they infer, is that rights are granted, selectively (as we’ve seen), by the State.

Inalienable and alienable rights, as far as the Founders were concerned, was based on the legal definition(s) (of rights) at that time (in English Law), and asserted quite strongly, for perhaps the first time, that “inalienable rights” derived not from any king in general, nor did these rights, in this case, derive from a *new* application of principle(s) based on The King Of England’s Law.

And that inalienable rights of individuals originated with God, our creator: hence the paired words “sacred and undeniable”. (“undeniable” being the only imprecise word of the two, in the legal sense)

Apologies for daring to brave the quagmire/boondoggle of semantics, but the left uses this cheap trick all the time to extricate the facts of the matter regarding our nations founding.

Jul 3, 2009 - 4:13 pm 23. JenLArt:

And that inalienable rights, originating from God include life, liberty, ownership of property, and the pursuit of prosperity and happiness, and that they
supersede the laws of men, not to mention the great earth mommy.

Bravo! Here Here!

And when in the course of human events…

Jul 3, 2009 - 4:51 pm 24. bogie wheel:

One of my Fourth of July traditions is to watch the movie musical “1776.” I had the great fortune to see the musical live as a kid, during the Bicentennial year, in Philadelphia, in a square near Independence Hall, where the original events took place.

We were not what you would have called a customary theater-going family. Just hicks from the sticks (central Florida), visiting my mom’s brother that summer. In addition to taking us to see “1776,” my uncle also took us to see “Porgy and Bess.” I liked both. Rather, I liked “Porgy,” but I became an instant and lifelong fan of “1776,” and a John Adams booster long before McCullough got around to writing his bio. The mini-series was terrific.

We were so incredibly blessed as a people, to be gifted with that group of patriotic men and women at that pivotal point in history. Considering the odds. Considering the unprecedented nature of it. Considering the fallibility of each individual involved. Considering the personality clashes. Considering the years, the decades, it took to truly take root and hold fast.

However did independence happen?

Had to be Providence.

Wretchard, thanks for marking the occasion of America’s birthday. I know we have a number of non-American readers, and I don’t know how you folks feel about your native countries, but it seems with (some, used to be more) Americans there can be this almost wild, deep, word-surpassing love for this land, for this heritage of ours. The deeper the love, the deeper the anguish and heartache in seeing that heritage in jeopardy.

God help us.

Jul 3, 2009 - 5:31 pm 25. Karen Yvonne:

I didn’t see the TV series the video clips were taken from, nor did I read McCullough’s biography. I meant to read it but… alas, so many good books, so little time.

But now I might have to set aside the time to read McCullough’s bio in order to satisfy my curiosity. In the video, where they’re going over the document’s wording, like Gaffe Prices @21, I wondered if Benjamin Franklin really could have objected to the words “sacred and undeniable” with something like “smacks of the pulpit.” And did McCullough have him saying anything like that? Because if he did say something like that, it doesn’t comport with a lot of other things he said, such as:

“History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion… and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” (Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1749, p.22.)

Especially does it fail to comport with what Franklin said on the occasion of his and Adams’s and Jefferson’s appointment to draft a seal and motto to characterize the spirit of the new nation. Franklin’s proposal:

“Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: ‘Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.’” (John Adams, Letters, Vol. I, p.152, to Abigail Adams on August 14, 1776.)

How’s that for smacking of the pulpit?

If Franklin was so scrupulous about avoiding such smacking, then how could he, at the Constitutional Convention, have said this:

“And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?… [W]ithout His concurring aid… we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.” (Madison, Papers, 1840, Vol. II, p. 985, June 28, 1787.)

His substitution of “self-evident” for the words “sacred and undeniable” begs the question: Why is it self-evident? Because virtually everyone in that time and place (Western society of the 18th century) was steeped in Christianity.

As I said, I didn’t read McCullough’s book that they based the TV series on, but I can’t help but imagine the scriptwriters feeling compelled to throw a sop to all the viewers who might gag if a line such as “smacks of the pulpit” wasn’t in there somewhere, for the benefit of all those who cherish the notion that many of the Founding Fathers were agnostic, or Deists at best. Or maybe it wasn’t so much for the edification of historical ignoramuses as to assuage and confirm their own revisionist views.

For that matter, what would they make of Thomas Jefferson’s warning:

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on State of Virginia, Philadelphia: Mathew Carey, 1794, p.237, Query XVIII.)

Well, on this eve of our Independence Day celebration we can all tremble for our country. We have, publicly and officially, forgotten that powerful Friend; we do imagine we no longer need His assistance; and we ARE on the verge of becoming a reproach and a byword to future historians. Perhaps instead of a celebration, it should be requiem.

Jul 3, 2009 - 5:41 pm 26. Karen Yvonne:

Why are my post disappearing into the ether?

Jul 3, 2009 - 5:42 pm 27. bogie wheel:

Karen -

All your post are belong to us.

Jul 3, 2009 - 5:53 pm 28. Karen Yvonne:

bogie wheel – maybe rejects errata.

I must have my say but it’ll have to wait cause I’m busy now.

Jul 3, 2009 - 5:59 pm 29. Charles:

A helpful thing to recall is that the successful atheist French revolution that we know about in 1789 was preceded two centuries earlier by an unsuccessful Calvinist revolution in 1572 during the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The French Huguenots were Calvinists as were most of the Dutch Swedish German reformed churches in the USA. Same goes for the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans.

The American revolution was a Calvinist revolution.

Of course, as soon as the revolution was completed –the USA began a long two century march away from Calvinism. Franklin himself brought over the first Unitarian pastor.

Jul 3, 2009 - 6:51 pm 30. bogie wheel:

Karen –

I have not read the biography either, so I don’t know whether that conversation is documented in the bio or whether the dialogue was made up by the screenwriters, or some combination of the two (did McCullough have accounts of the episode via letters or journals not relating actual dialogue but sentiments and points, upon which the screenwriters had to put actual dialogue)?

But it’s funny in that you reacted to Franklin’s comment differently than I did. I saw it as Franklin’s way of saying “remember your audience.” Both of Franklin’s critiques, on the slavery reference and the “sacred and undeniable” phrase, I took to be critiques from an international/universal (i.e., not solely American) perspective. Esp. since Adams had just got done saying that Jefferson was expounding not just on Americans’ rights but on the rights of all mankind.

Jefferson’s original phrasing, though precisely chosen, was rather like arguing a point by saying, “Because the Bible says so.” Franklin was anticipating the rebuttal (what of those who don’t believe in God, or in *your* God) and providing an alternative opening argument from not a theological but a philosophical/logical base … “self-evident.” Self- evident things don’t need to be proven because they are, well, self-evident. Where Jefferson’s “sacred” reference could have been an argument-starter, Franklin’s “self-evident” was intended, I believe, to be an argument ender. So that the reader would keep on reading.

Classical Franklin — exceptional mental caginess.

Anyhoo, to watch two of the least orthodox Christian (and by some measures, not Christian at all) founding fathers wrestle over a piece of theological phrasing was quite a hoot for me, actually. And Adams, the orthodox Christian, just a bystander. (Giamatti’s facial expressions, watching Jefferson’s quiet pain as his masterpiece gets its first, and friendliest [but nevertheless painful] edit, are priceless.)

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:22 pm 31. Gaffe Prices:

“Franklin was anticipating the rebuttal …”

…of that king and the Church of England.

Endowed by their creator.

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:52 pm 32. Gaffe Prices:

“…We holdthese truths to be self evident (nothing is “self evident” unless “We Hold them” to be so: that means commitment; as in “We stand by our position”) that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

What were self evident were inalienable rights, given by God, the god of Abraham- Jews Christians and deists: we are founded as a Christian Nation, by this God, and thou shalt have no other gods before him..

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:57 pm 33. Gaffe Prices:

And speaking of non-christians, non-Jews, and atheists, never has there been a country more tolerant of atheists. I would know, because I’ve been an atheist as many times as I’ve quit smoking.

No atheist is compelled, or ever has been, to renounce his atheism and embrace any religious faith, period, and this is because Jews were part of our founding, and did their share for the sake of its founding.

And whereas there has been plenty of anti-semitism here and there, it never included compulsion to conversion to christian faith.

deists, agnostics, ditto.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:15 pm 34. Charles:

30. bogie wheel:
And Adams, the orthodox Christian, just a bystander.
……….

Adams was a Unitarian. They were the liberals of the18th century. Their personalities are very different. But they were philosophically similar. But At this point they are very like minded men. Their interest was in converting theology into philosophy.

Jul 3, 2009 - 9:49 pm 35. Karen Yvonne:

bogie wheel @ 30: But it’s funny in that you reacted to Franklin’s comment differently than I did. I saw it as Franklin’s way of saying “remember your audience.” …I took to be critiques from an international/universal (i.e., not solely American) perspective. Esp. since Adams had just got done saying that Jefferson was expounding not just on Americans’ rights but on the rights of all mankind.

Okay, I can go along with the supposition that Benjamin Franklin could have said something in the spirit of “remember your audience,” mindful of the audience being wider than just his compatriots.

But I still say his modern reputation as one of the least religious of the founding fathers is inaccurate and misleading. As for the term “self-evident” being intended to be an argument-ender, there is, was and will be no shortage of persons for whom the universal rights of mankind are in no way self-evident. It is only self-evident to those who believe those rights are conferred upon us by our Creator. With the Creator out of the picture, then we confer those rights upon ourselves (man is the measure of all things). And, as we all know, what man gives, man can surely take away.

I can see why religion-haters could take some of the things Franklin is known to have said and conclude that he was more or less of an irreligious temperment and cast of mind. Franklin’s reply to Thomas Paine’s request for Franklin’s thoughts on religion is one example that can be seized upon to buttress that position, but even that is far from definitive.

It might be instructive to cite more of Franklin’s speech at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, parts of which I quoted from above. Was he just being his usual unorthodox and mentally cagey self when he said:

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights, to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: we shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

It grieves me that many people today walk around with the idea, not only that many of the Founders were secularists who wanted to make sure that religion stayed the hell out of government, but also that many of the sources the Founders looked to were also rationalist Enlightenment-type atheists. For example, many claim John Locke as one of these irreligious influences in our country’s founding. Yes, John Locke, not only a political theorist but also a theologian who authored The Reasonableness of Christianity and A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity.

I respect anybody’s right to believe or not believe but, please, must we hear Benjamin Franklin being made to say curtly and dismissively, “Smacks of the pulpit.” That smacks of our politically correct times.

Jul 3, 2009 - 10:04 pm 36. Karen Yvonne:

I replied to bogie wheel’s #30 but it’s not showing up.

Jul 3, 2009 - 10:16 pm 37. Karen Yvonne:

Seems my #35 showed up hours before my #36. What’s up with that I don’t know. #36 now makes no sense. Disregard it.

Jul 4, 2009 - 1:51 am 38. bogie wheel:

Charles @34 – My bad. That’s what I get for trying to go by memory from a book, read years back, on the religious beliefs of about 15 of the founding fathers. Got Adams mixed up with someone else. Obviously that would not have happened had I read McCullough, eh?

Karen – I share your frustration with the mischaracterization of the founding fathers re: the role of religion (in particular Christianity) in public life, and its influence/importance to the health of the nation. Somehow methinks if Franklin had not been such a notorious (old) debaucher in his private life, he would be much less of a darling to the secularists who want to use him as their sock puppet.

At any rate, there are at least two things at work, I believe: One is the agenda of those who want to extirpate the influence of Judeo-Christian belief, and especially open expression of the Christian portion thereof, from the American public square. The most zealous of them will not be satisfied until every county named “Trinity,” every town with “San” preceding it, every “Merry Christmas” utterance, and every hint of every cross on every municipal flag is scrubbed and disremembered, like those vanishing commissars in Soviet photos.

The other thing at work is a theological sorting, trying to reconstruct and categorize who actually believed what, all under the added challenge that several of these guys lived to exceedingly ripe old ages and their views tended to change somewhat over the course of their lives. This practice is serious academic work, often shaded with nuance and always to be taken in the context of an understanding of human complexity, of which these men were not exceptions.

Unfortunately, any statement made in the course of Item B that shows, or even appears to show, either an aberrant (from an orthodox Christian POV) theological belief or a distancing from religion by a founding father tends to get seized on by members of Group A and trumpeted as PROOF, PROOF, that Barry Lynn is right and should be thanked for saving us from the coming (here, by some claims) American mullahocracy.

Whereas I think we have to look at not only the whole of these men’s lives, but the laws of the society in which they lived at the time — ie, what they found not just tolerable but acceptable, even preferred. Those who think that living under a society governed by James Dobson would be intolerable to the Nth degree would, I suspect, find it a far lighter yoke than living in the actual society that was governed by James Madison.

We can, and should, I think, continue to make theological inquiries and distinctions where applicable. But my take is that in the aggregate, most of these men were, in their public demeanors and day-to-day habits, a lot more pious than, ehhhh, probably about 50% (at least) of Americans today. The Bible knowledge of Jefferson or Franklin would likely put the vast majority of evangelicals today to shame. Christianity was just “in the air” back then in a way it is not today. The way children were educated, the expectation of public speech and manners and dress, the strict social standards re: relations between the sexes, rates of marriage & divorce … all vastly different back then. Was it a perfect society? Of course not. But we kid ourselves if we believe that, where it had faults and injustices, genuine Christianity was the root of the problem.

BTW – re: the mini-series, the Franklin character definitely gets his “ewwww” moment later on in the story, when he and Adams are sent to France. Franklin was an old goat by almost anyone’s standard, and this is illustrated by way of contrasting him with Adams, who was, acc to McCullough’s (and others’) research, both deeply in love with Abigail and faithful to her through the entire course of their marriage. IOW, Franklin is no peach as depicted in the mini-series, so everything he says, including “smacks of the pulpit,” should be understood in that context. (What really struck me about the mini-series was that Alexander Hamilton came off like a complete, well, word-not-to-be-used-in-polite-company.)

Jul 4, 2009 - 6:19 am 39. Karen Yvonne:

Well, maybe I should’ve refrained from any comment at all on this thread since I didn’t see the TV series or read the book. And also since it looks as if my long comments might be undergoing some kind of withholding for monitoring – maybe because I mentioned the s-word a few threads back, I don’t know. And maybe I made too much of the “smacks of the pulpit” line.

But lemme add just one more thing. I was well into my 30s before I undertook to discover for myself just exactly what the Bible said and have read it cover to cover more than once since then. Even though I was made to attend church as a child, oddly enough, I still didn’t know that much about it. It’s amazing, all the stuff that’s in there. You can see the root of the ideas we take for granted as first principles. You can see the foundations. Were it not for this Judeo-Christian underpinning, people like the founders, who did what they did, never would’ve existed. The US would never have been been exceptional in any way. It’s just too sad that this heritage is largely uncredited today, and even attacked. Today people think our path traces back to ancient Athens and Rome. But Alexander Hamilton said that it would be “as ridiculous to seek for models in the simple ages of Greece and Rome as it would be to go in quest of them among Hottentots and Laplanders,” and in The Federalist it’s noted that the classical idea of liberty decreed “to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next,” and “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” The fact is, the primary and overriding influence in our country’s founding, notwithstanding some contributions from the classical ancients, was the Judeo-Christian Bible. But today, who cares?

I just don’t understand how we can hope to reverse the current on-going destruction by insisting that we cherish certain principles simply because they’re principles we’ve decided to cherish, without acknowledging what is behind those principles and what upholds them. It’s not enough to say, we support equal rights and human dignity. We’ve been saying that all the while we’ve been sliding on down the slippery slope for decades up til the present time, only to find ourselves at last under the thumb of a Marxist elite seemingly bound and determined to smash us all to smithereens.

(People who would interpret what I’ve said as a prescription for a theocracy don’t understand Christianity in the least.)

Jul 4, 2009 - 3:46 pm 40. comatus:

I don’t think that the various modes of Christianity active among the Founders were the root of any problem. I do think a lot of cocky and deliberately ignorant people today are trying to appropriate their words and actions, without having the spiritual capacity to understand their theology. And in that, I see a problem, because they call their movement Christian and they “don’t understand Christianity in the least.”

I know students at Liberty University, and when I asked them how the same Baptist churches that were champions of the cause of liberty during the Revolution came to be associated later with such causes as dancing licenses, liquor possession, gun laws and miscegenation statutes, they smiled and said “Christians and libertarians don’t have much in common.” For their part, I’m going to have to take them at their word.

My mind is still open on other brands of Christianity (they don’t seem to put the 2+2 together about what having an “established religion” here would really mean), but I don’t really see that kind of “conservative” “Christianity” having any useful role in this republic. They are statists pure and simple, and, as such, just as much my enemy as any Communist. Not any more, mind you, just equally.

Jul 4, 2009 - 5:25 pm 41. Karen Yvonne:

comatus: I do think a lot of cocky and deliberately ignorant people today are trying to appropriate their words and actions…

I agree with you, comatus. And at the other end of the spectrum the lefty churches often do the same thing. The students at Liberty Univ. gave a pretty pitiful answer to your question.

An excellent book on the subject of religion and the Constitution is Original Intent by David Barton.

Jul 5, 2009 - 11:14 pm 42. Gaffe Prices:

Karen Yvonne @35

I guess the tactic is to rewrite history by rewriting biographies selectively, and recasting the principle founders (as the left) sees fit.

And omitting all manner of quotations where the principle discloses in public his otherwise private convictions regarding the role of the almighty per his or others prayers.

The Left breaks out in a rash a=t the notion of anyone expressing gratitude (to g-d) for anything that might have been forged by difficulty and struggle. As you’ve said, the object is to project the notion that man is the measure of all things, as opposed to the idea that what had happened was a miracle.

And could be lost if the first thing go was the humility that sees liberty as a blessing.

I still contend that the example set by our founders, is that none were rejected on the basis of any atheist disposition. The paradox is that for there to be freedom, it must include the right to choose not to believe in a g-d, and U.S has always been the most tolerant of this. Franklin and other Founders were certainly aware of Voltaire and his criticisms (and I’m sure you are aware of this too). I for one appreciate what you have shared to set the record straight, yet again. Some or most of it I have not seen before.

People can choose to be atheist, and it can open their eyes to reason. But, as you point out as well, reason without wisdom hardens itself into absolutes, and that condition has metastasized into a plague of evangelical atheism, or faux or compromised christianitys from the secularists.

Jul 6, 2009 - 6:14 am 43. Gaffe Prices:

P.S. Over at VDH site, he explained that comments that don’t show up for a while are the result of a webmaster (working for Pajamas) which screens for unacceptable words. Sometimes it takes even longer for them to show up, but is the result of human error (or perhaps a paucity of webmasters to keep up w/ demand). A few times I thought I had been banned, and at least one post of mine disappeared into the ether, but all the others delayed eventually made it. The worst part was the “not knowing”.

Jul 6, 2009 - 6:33 am 44. Karen Yvonne:

Gaffe @42: I still contend that the example set by our founders, is that none were rejected on the basis of any atheist disposition. The paradox is that for there to be freedom, it must include the right to choose not to believe in a g-d, and U.S has always been the most tolerant of this.

Absolutely. I would contend the same. It’s called (you’re well aware) freedom of conscience – a principle found in the Biblical account of Joshua’s speech to the Hebrews at the end of his life, telling them that they must choose. He of course exhorted them to remain faithful, and warned of all that would befall them if they did not, but the choice was theirs. And he wrapped up his speech at the end by saying, basically, you can do what you want, but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.

I’m not trying to deny that Ben Franklin had some near-libertine proclivities. But whatever his – or any of the other Founders’ – personal flaws and shortcomings might’ve been, they did not prevent them from relying on Biblical truth as their guide in crafting our system of government. Anyone who cares to peruse the original sources of the Founders’ writings can see this right there in black and white over and over again. I’m afraid the history texts used in education today that tend to rely more on postmodern interpreters of the original sources have done a great deal of harm, and when you try to point out the discrepancies to the miseducated, they seem to think you’re portraying the Founders as nothing more than a bunch of irrational, petty, censorious scolds (and of course they were nothing of the kind). But as far as some can see, religious belief couldn’t have played that large a part because everyone knows religious people are irrational and not too bright.

(Re that last point, excellent arguments exist that the flowering of scientific progress could never have occurred in the first place in the absence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christianity and science are NOT in conflict – but that’s another subject.)

Anyway, what worries me most about this whole topic is: the kind of country the Founders handed down to us is (or is that now was?) the kind of country it is because of WHO the Founders were – I’m not saying they were a bunch of pious in-church-every-Sunday types; I’m trying to get at, not their outward foibles and flaws, but what they saw as the highest truth upon which to base the birth of the nation, setting it up on a rock, not shifting sand; who they were had a lot to do with their religious beliefs; and if we, as a people, are now unable to recognize and acknowledge who they really were, then we are not the kind of people who can keep this Republic.

I don’t believe the election of Obama and a now filibuster-proof moonbat majority in Congress was just a fluke. I don’t believe it was just a freak outcome of hoodwinked voters blindsided by the Obamanation’s silver-tongued lies. I think there are good and logical reasons why we find ourselves confronted with the menace of the current crop of wreckers. Still looking forward to the next election, but that may be a weak reed.

Jul 6, 2009 - 4:16 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.