Driving Revealed Religion From Politics
Jonathan Rowe on Feb 23rd 2008
There is great dispute over how to properly understand the natural law that America’s Declaration of Independence invokes. One side argues such an idea is entirely compatible with classical and Christian concepts of natural right and the other argues the Declaration’s natural rights teachings are novel Hobbsean/Lockean and hence modern ideas.
Ellis Sandoz, a traditional Roman Catholic scholar at LSU argues contra Leo Strauss, for the traditional classical/Christian side of the natural law contained in the Declaration. He has a new book out on the matter which I’m sure makes an invaluable contribution to the debate.
I can’t resolve who is right in the debate though my sympathies lie with the Straussian side which views the natural rights teachings of the Declaration to be “modern” and subversive of attempts to use politics to preserve the traditional Christian order.
However, one thing is undeniable, and unfortunately, all too often misunderstood by the Protestant “Christian America” crowd, but not by the traditional Roman Catholics for whose side Sandoz eloquently argues, and that is “nature” defines as what is discoverable by reason as opposed to revealed in the Bible. As such, the natural law or “laws of nature and nature’s God” defines as what man discovers through reason alone. Now this could lead to some very conservative results; the traditional natural law scholars ala Aquinas, and in whose tradition Robert George, John Finnis, Hadley Arkes, and Ed Feser presently operate use natural reasoning to oppose among other things abortion, homosexuality, and contraception. Or using “reason” and the premise that man has unalienable natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, equality, and conscience could also lead to very un-conservative, non-traditional outcomes. For instance, Locke’s self ownership principle, part of this natural rights theory, could logically result in pro-sodomy, pro-contraception, pro-drug use, and perhaps pro-abortion outcomes. Indeed, Justice Stevens in the dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick noted “the concept of privacy embodies the `moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole.’”
But the bottom line is, “reason” not “revelation” is where arguments over public policy are supposed to take place, according to whichever of the two views of the natural law/natural rights one endorses or thinks is endorsed by America’s Declaration of Independence.
The reason why America had to turn to reason or the natural law to ground its public order was because the politics of revelation were too sectarian and lead to sectarian disputes. In order to overcome such disputes, revelation had to be driven from politics. Indeed sometimes Founders such as John Adams termed this rationalistic natural religion that served as America’s civic religion, “Christianity”; but reading the context of those quotations shows what Adams was invoking was not traditional biblical Christianity, but something else.
For instance, one famous quotation that the “Christian America” crowd often offers out of context is (Sandoz’s paper reproduces it as well):
“The general Principles, on which the Fathers atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite…. And what were these general Principles? I answer [John Adams wrote]– the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and those principles of Liberty, as unalterable as human nature and the terrestrial, mundane system “(Letter of Adams to Jefferson, June 28, 1813).
So one might ask, what are these “general principles” of Christianity about which Adams was speaking? The Trinity? Incarnation? Atonement? Original Sin? Infallibility of the Bible? No! Adams vehemently rejected these notions especially in the year 1813 when writing this letter to Jefferson (many of Adams’ most heterodox statements were written in that year). Adams states these “general principles of Christianity” drew a lowest common denominator among the following types:
“Who composed that Army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes [during the American Revolution]? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, House Protestants, Deists and theists; and [Protestants who believe nothing]. Very few however of several of these Species. Never the less all educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
[* Note Sandoz's version reads "Deists and theists"; the version with which I am familiar reads "Deists and Atheists."]
Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, it should be noted, are unitarians. Universalists denied eternal damnation. Invoking these four groups as “Christians” was a sentiment heterodox enough, but understandable given those groups best represent Adams’ own personal theology. Yet, Adams goes further and notes “Deists and Atheists; and [Protestants who believe nothing]” are part of this lowest common denominator of believers in “general principles of Christianity.” As Dr. Gregg Frazer, himself an evangelical of impeccable orthodoxy, noted:
Adams spoke of the “fine young fellows” who conducted the Revolution. He said that they included all of the various denominations of protestants as well as “Deists and Atheists, and Protestants who believe nothing.” That is the context in which he speaks…of “the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United.” The “those Sects” includes deist, atheists, and those who believe nothing. This was clearly not the Christianity of the orthodox, who did not believe that deists, atheists, and those who believe nothing were united with true Christians on any principles of Christianity!
So even those quotations that seem on point that the Christian America crowd offers out of context, when understood in proper context, support the notion that America’s higher law is part of a naturalistic theology ascertainable from reason, not the Bible.
Where this dispute may be relevant in today’s politics: On matters of legislation, I don’t think if a number of politicians support a policy because the Bible tells them, that would be unconstitutional. Politicians can use any personal reason for voting for or against legislation. However, if scripture or revealed religion is the only possible reason that can be ascertained for a piece of legislation, I think that should flunk the rational basis test of judicial scrutiny. This dispute is more relevant on how the judiciary might approach the concept of natural law or natural rights. Currently, one member of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, supports incorporating the Declaration of Independence’s natural law/natural rights teachings into constitutional jurisprudence. And the historical record, in my opinion, strongly supports such an approach. At least this is something Supreme Court Justices seriously discussed in the Founding era, see Calder v. Bull.
Constitutional interpretation needs to be grounded in some kind of theoretical approach. And the natural law/natural rights approach is entirely consistent even demanded by the original meaning of America’s Founding documents. If such an approach gains more appeal in the judiciary, it’s paramount that we properly understand that the higher law of the natural law is that which is ascertainable from reason, not revelation.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
Perhaps the Declaration’s references “laws of nature and nature’s God” are intended to be pluralistic or polydox in character.
For those who framed the Declaration’s terms, “nature’s God” may well have represented an effort to distance their cause from revealed religion and the supernatural.
The Declaration’s drafters were, after all, Deists and Unitarians.
But those for whom the Declaration spoke surely were not all rationalists, Deists, and Unitarians. Many were orthodox Trinitarians and Calvinists.
The drafters’ genius may have been in framing language that was broad enough to include a wide spectrum of belief, both in their own time, and ours.
The error of today’s “Christian America” crowd, then, is in insisting that a genuinely polydox Declaration reflects their own idiosyncratic fundamentalism, to the exclusion of all other viewpoints — when in fact it was meant to encompass a broad spectrum of belief.
When John Adams wrote to Jefferson, in 1813, that the “general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God,” his words may well have foreshadowed the Rev. Theodore Parker’s 1841 sermon on The Transient and Permanent in Christianity, in which Rev. Parker declared:
Thus, Rev. Parker continued, even if it could be proved, “that the gospels were the fabrication of designing and artful men,” and “that Jesus of Nazareth had never lived, still Christianity would stand firm, and fear no evil,” for its permanent truths necessarily “stand by themselves.”
In their tenor, the Declaration’s reference to “laws of nature and nature’s God” may accomodate Theodore Parker’s theology more comfortably than David Barton’s. What’s remarkable is that the Declaration nonetheless united people of Trinitiarian and Calivinistic belief in a common cause with the rationalistic Deists and Unitarians who wrote it.
Eric Alan Isaacson
“However, if scripture or revealed religion is the only possible reason that can be ascertained for a piece of legislation, I think that should flunk the rational basis test of judicial scrutiny.”
Of course, some people consider their scripture or revealed religion to be justified correct by reason. Not all religion is based on revealed scripture or any written revelation, the revelation can be, and arguably often is, personal. Indeed, similar scripture is interpreted very differently and understood very differently by different people and even the exact wording of scripture that claims to be from the same source differs singificantly between different languages and different editions of the same language. For these reasons I think it is better to make the standard something like this: “If there is no sane way of interpreting a law or government activity’s purpose without attributing to the state a sectarian religious view then it is unconstitutional.” Keeping that in mind with respect to your monotheism, and my atheism, lets apply this idea to an example.
To paraphrase Andrew Koppelman
Assistant Professor of Law and Political Science Northwestern University School of Law (I am modifying his words, so this is not entirely authorship but not exactly his either, see http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/1998-March/011848.html)
It would also be illegitimate for the state to carve, over the entrance of the capitol, “THERE ARE MANY GODS” or “THERE ARE NO GODS” or “THERE IS ONE GOD.” The state simply is not permitted to take an official position on disputed matters of theology.
If the state may not speak in a way that asserts a controversial theological position, and it cannot coercively enforce a religious orthodoxy, then it may not exercise its powers of coercion in a way that implicitly asserts a controversial theological position. The
problem with a many gods law or a no gods law or a “one nation under God” law is that these coercive laws implicitly assert the correctness or incorrectness of Hindi polytheism, Abrahamic religion monotheism, etc.. They are unconstitutional because their expressive content coercively favors or disfavors particular religious orthodoxies.
There is no sane way of interpreting an “one nation Under God” law’s purpose without attributing to the state the endorsement of a sectarian religious view.
Eric,
I agree completely with your analysis. It’s ironic that few appreciate that the Unitarian-Universalists are the true heirs to the political theology of America’s Founding. Yet, some of my conservative Christian critics may rightly point out that Founding era (late 18th and early 19th Century) unitarian-universalism differed from today’s Unitarian-Universalism, arguably as much as classical liberalism differs from modern lefty liberalism.
The term Gregg Frazer coined to describe the religious beliefs of the First 4 Presidents and Ben Franklin is “theistic rationalist.” You could call them classical unitarian-universalists (all were or likely were theological unitarians who disbelieved in eternal damnation). Yet if we give them the uu label, this perhaps unfairly suggests a connection to today’s modern Unitarian-Universalist Church, more meaningful than is warranted. Though I wish it were different, those churches back then were not performing same-sex marriages as they are today.
Athough I have an activist atheist reader who objects to “theistic rationalist.” He thinks it’s loaded because it makes “theism” seem “rational” which he does not believe to be true. So he opts for (small u) unitarian-universalist.
Coming up with a label that fairly and accurately captures what the key Founders believed in — this system that was theologically unitarian, and somewhere in between Deism and orthodox Christianity, with “rationalism” as the trumping element — is challenging. And Dr. Frazer argues many folks don’t understand what they believed in precisely because the right label was never coined.
This may also explain why I don’t think we should call Jefferson or Adams “Christian” even though they understood themselves as such. The dispute between the secular left and religious right — were they Christians or Deists? — is so loaded that perhaps in fairness, it’s better to opt for a third term that uses neither Deist nor Christian (as opposed to what David Holmes does, which is label them “Christian-Deists” as opposed to the non-Christian Deism of Paine and Allen).
If you want to read an amusing post that captures this dynamic, see this post where a conservative Christian minister takes umbrage at my labeling John Adams a “Unitarian” because that word to him smacks of today’s Unitarian-Universalism with whose politics he vehemently disagrees.
http://positiveliberty.com/2006/04/john-adams-quotation-of-the-week-2.html
EA,
Speak of the Devil. You are the commenter I was referring to in my just submitted comment post who objects to the term “theistic rationalism.”
Look, we can’t keep giving people who insist on misunderstanding the meaning of words a veto over of the use of those words. That is bad practice, I think it is self-defeating.
I agree with your view that they appear to have been unitarian (denial of the Trinity), universalist (universal salvation, the bad punished temporarily at most, eventually redeemed), syncretist (accept most or all religious traditions as having validity and merit), rationalist (reason is the best and preferred method for acquiring and justifying knowledge), theist (there is one or more gods). We should use all of the words that apply and insist on the proper definitions. If you, Jon, choose to select just two of those five terms and someone else also selects just two of those five terms as the label, and both of you give similar but opposing rational explanations for why your two words are a preferable label over the other two (concerns about biases in the larger audience), then it seems both of you are more in agreement than disagreement, its just a different selection of two words from the same five words based on focsuing on different popular biases.
What I tend to object to is trying to import religious beliefs rooted in an 18th century understanding of the world into the 21st century and then applying that as a standard for governing today. What was rational or irrational to believe in the 18th century is not necessary as rational or irrational to believe in the 21st century, and this is the case with the some of the religious beliefs and attitudes of the 18th century people being discussed here, in my judgement. So in some contexts where you have referenced the present tense in commentary about 18th and 19th century beliefs and attitudes, I advocate using the past tense and placing more emphasis on that time period distinction and its potential significance.
The Declaration of Independence is a good example of the importance of time when discussing religious beliefs and government. In 1779 Jefferson tried to get his Bill for Religious Freedom passed by the Virginia House of Burgesses. He failed in that year. Seven years later, however-before the constitutional convention or the Establishment Clause-the Bill was passed. Thus, any consensus regarding religion and government at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence-which, of course, is not a charter for any legal construct-underwent a sea-change over the next eleven years.
Novice question: What was the actual term used where the phrase [Protestants who believe nothing] is written?
“However, if scripture or revealed religion is the only possible reason that can be ascertained for a piece of legislation, I think that should flunk the rational basis test of judicial scrutiny.”
Although I don’t think it would be likely to happen, I can’t help but think about a paradox this could cause if it were carried to a logical extreme. Some theologians (is it Reformed epistemology? Radical Orthodoxy?) believe that it is only by the Trinitarian nature of God that Reason keeps its stability — that to deny the Trinitarian God is ultimately to abandon Reason’s legitimacy and to plunge us all into relativism. Presumably, someone who believed this would have to regard a whole host of reasons as constitutionally impermissible that a Jeffersonian-style Deist would consider perfectly licit.
Of course, if the “rational basis” only means to test whether an intelligent & thinking person could come to such and such a conclusion, then the problem wouldn’t come up, because the reformed epistemologist or the radically orthodox would still be able to concede that atheists are thinking and intelligent even if they would deny the ultimate legitimacy of the reason atheists use. But the problem is that an “intelligent & thinking person” test would have to include biblically based reasoning as well, unless it were to make a claim that biblically-based reasoning is just inherently wrongheaded (and hence to make the theological judgment that such religions are rubbish).
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that, for a large portion of the Christian tradition Special & General Revelation are related to each other in complex ways. Special Revelation is not just an add-on to what-we-could-know-by-reason.
I think the solution lies in the fact that human law is never consistent with itself at the metaphysical level. Yet we seem to get along, anyway. All in all though, I prefer EA’s rule that starts off: “If there is no sane way …”
“Protestans qui ne croyent rien.”
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/adamsprinciples.html
Perhaps because I am basically a bear of very little brain it is difficult for me to grasp the import of all this. As I’ve said before, I’m all for getting straight, insofar as possible, whatever the founding fathers did or did not believe, though it’s never been entirely clear to me exactly why I or anyone else should care all that much, and I say that regardless of which ’side’ one is on.
Still and all, is the thinking here that somehow making a case for better historical biography will somehow dissuade people from either their nonfactual claims or their beliefs? For that matter, if I am a Pastafarian (you know, worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and I contend, evidence be damned, both that Jefferson was, too, and that the FSM has revealed to me that the law should require teaching in school that humanity arose from the primordial marinara sauce, am I to be excluded from the political debate simply because my views are deemed daft by you apastaists? I mean, can we (hell, should we?) really try to limit the franchise (in the broader sense of the term) to only those who are not in some sense irrational or arational?
DA,
If I can try to explain the import of all of this briefly and simply: Many folks will tell you these quotations are important because we are trying to figure out what America is all about.
Jonathan,
Please believe that I’m really not trying to make light of such an endeavor, even though I freely admit that intellectual history, per se, is a bit of a blind spot with me. (I recall listening to passionate debates in graduate school about what, exactly, Hume’s argument against causation was and thinking to myself “Who cares what Hume actually thought? What’s important is what is the strongest such argument and what are the strongest counter-arguments?”)
So, taking your brief reply seriously as well, for me it is largely a matter of indifference what the founders’ various religious beliefs or lack thereof may have been because it is almost entirely irrelevant to what America is, in fact, *now* all about.
Now, I’m not a complete idiot, so I know that many do not share that attitude and, again, I’m certainly all for careful history and such, especially insofar as that is probative of the question what America is all about for such people. Even so, for someone like me who doesn’t believe that there is any such thing as normative ethical or moral natural law (at least not in any sort of way that 90%+ of those who argue about such things would deem sufficient), figuring out what, if any, theoretical (mis)understanding of natural law may have influenced the drafter or signers of the Declaration isn’t going to have much weight of any sort.
While we should certainly respect what Jefferson, et al., thought, and while it is certainly dishonest to misrepresent them, it nonetheless is equally certain that we are not bound to accept or agree even with what they actually wrote, let alone what they may have thought in support of what they wrote.
Still, I have the disquieting sense I am already precariously close to being the turd in this particular punchbowl, so I think I’ll just disengage now and leave the rest of you to it.
No problem; I have a very thick skin when it comes to these things. I understand the legal realism philosophy that just dismisses the natural law as a fiction, and asserts why bother even wasting time on it. Myself, I’m kind of agnostic on the natural law.
However, many folks do believe in metaphysical truths and seek ways to connect these ideas to their politics and to the American Founding. I’m exploring how these theological or metaphysical ideas may bear themselves out, properly understood from an historical perspective.
From what you’ve probably already seen, I specialize in showing how the theological or metaphysical ideas to which America’s key Founders appealed were not authentically orthodox Christian notions, though they may have been compatible with orthodox Christianity.
Again to tie this back to what America should be all about. Some argue that America should be a “Christian Nation,” as it once was. Well, if America never was a Christian Nation….
Oh, I believe in all sorts of metaphysical truths, their dubious substantive contribution to our knowledge of the world aside, and I’d describe myself more as a legal positivist than as a legal realist, though I do have my risqué moments when I flirt dangerously with critical legal studies. (They’re actually very good on foundational, meta-legal stuff, it’s just their actual politics that sucks. Besides, I could never really take anyone who takes Foucault seriously seriously.)
But, yeah, the whole Christian Nation stuff pretty much leaves me cold regardless of what, e.g., Jefferson believed. Hell, the man’s ideas of penal reform included “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.” And this is well before such piercings were fashionable!
DA,
Heh. Well said. Yup back then the FF’s including “liberal” ones like Jefferson believed in some pretty weird and illiberal things. Many if not most readers here or folks I otherwise hang around with in the intellectual sense just dismiss searching for normative purpose in what the Founders believed given things like slavery, treatment of women, gays and barbaric punishments and the like. Most of these same folks think the notion that there REALLY is a Nature’s God who endows men with unalienable rights to be laughably naive.
Yet, a lot of ordinary folks do seem to believe in Americanism. Most are probably traditional Christians of some sort. And I enjoy engaging them to see if they can make sense of the tension between their orthodox Christian doctrine and the political theology of America’s Founding.
That’s what I’ve always liked about you, Jon—always willing to put yourself between The Rock and some very hard places.
LOL. Thanks!
Jonathan,
Your “conservative Christian critics may rightly point out that Founding era (late 18th and early 19th Century) unitarian-universalism differed from today’s Unitarian-Universalism.”
The Founding-era’s Unitarianism and Universalism differed from modern Unitarian Universalism, much as twenty-first century political and scientific theory differ from eighteenth-century political or scientific theory.
The fact that twenty-first century Americans have different ideas about the place of women in society or, indeed, about slavery, than eighteenth-century Americans shows that ideas and attitudes change over time. Thank goodness!
The distinguishing characteristic of American Unitarianism and American Universalism has been that neither has ever demanded a rigid orthodoxy. Each was a polydox faith; each was open to new ideas.
Eighteenth-century Unitarianism was about freedom to deviate from orthodox dogma. And if eighteenth-century Universalism insisted that God would not bar heaven’s doors over differences in theology, why would nineteenth-century Universalists close their churches to Darwinist skeptics?
It’s by no means surprising that what people in a polydox tradition believe would change over time. Indeed, I think it fair to say that twentyfirst-century Unitarian Universalism affirms John Adams’s fundamental approach to religion, even if most modern Unitarian Universalists do not embrace the details of his theology. He wouldn’t expect them to.
Eric
Eric and Jim both make good points.
As an outsider to the “Christian” identity, because I don’t have a stake in who is and who is not, I try to be fair in a descriptive sense. Since I spend a lot of time engaging conservative evangelicals who might be sympathetic to the “Christian America” idea, I try to defer to their understanding of the term. And to simplify when communicating with them sometimes it’s just easier to say these Founders weren’t Christian, than to say they weren’t Christians in the sense that you understand the term. Though I can stand to be more careful with my language.
Still, I think the proper way to understand who is and who is not a “Christian” is up for lively debate.
Did you say “lively debate” ? ? ?
It’s been said that on reaching the Pearly Gates, and finding two doors, one marked “Heaven” and the other marked “Discussion Group Debating Whether Heaven Exists,” the Unitarian Universalists generally choose the discussion group.
Eric
Heh.