Positive Liberty

I’ve just accepted an invitation to blog for American Creation with Brad Hart and Lindsey Shuman. The purpose of this blog is to explore the issue of religion and how it relates to America’s Founding, one of my primary scholarly interests.

This will not affect my blogging at either jonrowe.blogspot.com (which collects everything I blog about) or positiveliberty.com (which collects mostly everything I blog about). The new blog will collect only my posts on the American Founding and religion. As a medium-time blogger, my goal is to have the widest possible readership, given my narrow range of interests. As such, I feel the more outlets my research is syndicated to, the better.

Drawing from Peter Lillback’s book on George Washington’s faith, Brad from the American Revolution blog looks at the phrases Washington used when praying and aptly concludes that Washington’s language was not that of an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. Yet, because Washington prayed at all (and it’s something he did constantly) Washington was no Deist either.

The guy who posted this probably imagined that I’d delete it. Instead, I’m promoting it to the front page. There’s some strong language, and some potentially offensive content, so I’m putting it below the fold. I’ve not edited it in any way, except to make the hyperlink work.
Continue Reading »

We’re back, after considerable weirdness today. An unannounced upgrade to our database threw off our old-ish version of WordPress, and I had to upgrade it this evening. Authors will find a redesigned back end as well, but I’m still learning that myself, so I won’t be much help. You’re on your own, rugged individualists.

In the meantime, here’s the post I’d had lined up for this morning…

Overdosed on regular old satire? Unable to tell where reality ends and satire begins? Here’s a great little discussion at Conservapedia: How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals? Disgruntled conservatives write as follows:

I don’t think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like this, or this, or his contributions here. When I first read the first of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it was a liberal satire. Chrysogonus 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don’t think liberal satirists are talented enough to produce something like that, which takes someone a bit special. –Jeremiah4-22 15:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? Because there are several satire articles on here. I’d name them, but I’m just a dumb ol liberal. Czolgolz 15:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Bonus points for “whilst.” And come to think of it, I do like the tagline: “Conservapedia: Where Reality Ends and Satire Begins.”

..the shredding of the Constitution continued.

Over the last few days Ed Brayton and Radley Balko have both covered a remarkable new argument justifying expanded executive power. Here’s the story:

But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.

Al-Marri’s capture six years ago might be the Bush administration’s biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al Qaeda sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gases and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president’s wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a resident and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely…

… The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.

“What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?” Judge William B. Traxler asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

The court seemed torn.

One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.

This is the stuff of dictatorships. And yes, some evidence does suggest that massive roundups of American citizens have been contemplated.

If the evidence against al-Marri is so damning — and frankly it looks pretty awful — then let him face a trial, just like anyone else. You say he planned to kill hundreds or thousands? So did Charles Manson. So did Jeffrey Dahmer. Timothy McVeigh did worse than either of them, and even he got a trial. What is so peculiar about this case that would justify throwing away centuries of legal practice?

Balko writes,

If the president gets these powers, it’s the end, gang. The writ of habeas corpus is 400 years old. The Bush administration is, rather incredibly, arguing that the “commander in chief” power of the U.S. Constitution authorizes them to vaporize it.

I wouldn’t quite say that it was the end, if by “the end” we mean “time for a revolution.” But if they get away with this, it certainly is the end of our understanding of the United States as even a vaguely rights-respecting government. (When would I take up arms? I am unable to say. And at the same time, I recognize that my inability to do so only encourages further abuses.)

Balko again:

Keep in mind, this isn’t a question of whether such people, or whether such people as al-Marri, should be prosecuted. We’re talking about whether we should give the president the authority to arrest and detain such people—American residents (and, the Bush administration has argued, American citizens)—without giving them a trial . . . forever.

The Bush administration is claiming its wartime powers give it this broad authority. But the war the administration says we’re fighting isn’t against Iraq or Afghanistan. It isn’t a war for which there will ever be a peace accord or the signing of a treaty. It’s a war against “terrorism.” It’s a war that quite literally is never going to end. And so any “wartime” powers we grant the executive, are powers we’re granting to the executive permanently.

I may need to remind readers why it’s important to discuss what the key American Founders really believed, aside from the fact that some find it interesting history. One key tenet of the Christian Nationalists is that their biblical God Founded America. And if He did, of course He would use real spirit filled Christians — “Christian Statesmen” as they like to term them — not secret deistic or unitarian heretics as His instruments in doing the Founding.

It’s mainly evangelicals/fundamentalists — David Barton, William Federer, D. James Kennedy, etc. — who posit the “Christian Nation” idea. And their idea of who God is and what Christianity is can be quite narrow and distinct. As I noted before in dealing with one of these Christian Nation apologists, he stated: Continue Reading »

From the home office at the Crawfish Ranch, the Top Ten surprises in Scott McClellan’s new White House exposé, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, are:

10. Cabinet meetings scheduled in president’s calendar as “keggers”

9. George Stephanopoulos’s secret stash of hair grooming products left behind podium includes “industrial strength mousse”

8. Flight jacket worn during “Mission Accomplished” speech borrowed from Indiana Jones

7. Karl Rove quit in disgust when polls showed public thought Cheney more evil

6. After hunting accident, Vice President Cheney’s wife Lynne heard to comment “His gun still fires? News to me.”

5. No one on White House staff has ever seen vice president between dawn and sundown

4. President overjoyed that The Hottie & The Nottie finally released on DVD

3. Staff panicked when president rehearsed Axis of Evil speech and kept saying “Iraq, Iran and North Dakota”

2. Secret Service code name for Vice President? “Mr. Burns”

And the number one surprise in Scott McClellan’s new White House “Tell All”:

1. President still pondering last minute third term run

You think you have a hard time getting a plumber when you need one? Pity the poor astronauts awaiting a spare part to fix the toilet on the international space station. “Okay, that’ll be $37.50 for the pump, $150 labor and $2,000,000 for the service call.” (I admit it. I don’t know how much each flight of the the space shuttle Discovery actually costs and just pulled a figure from my… well, never mind that.)

But my favorite quote from the story is as follows:

The space station’s Russian-built toilet has been acting up for the past week. The three male residents have temporarily bypassed the problem, which involves urine collection, not solid waste.

I’m not allowed to talk about the case I’m on a jury for right now, but it’s been taking up just about all of my mental energies for the last few days, and this explains my lack of blogging. Even over the long weekend, the trial was on my mind, and I’ve got nothing in particular to write about at the moment.

Consider this a placeholder until we’re done, at least from me. (Thanks, cobloggers!) Also, you may want to check out this post of mine at the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog. I’m posting there once in a while now too, but anytime I do, I’ll be sure to put up a link so that the regulars here can read it if they like.

TMZ has the deal on Hulk Hogan’s theological explanation for why his jailed son’s friend was nearly killed and is now paralyzed for life as a result of Hulk’s son’s reckless drunk driving.

An orthodox Christian apologist for the “Christian Nation” idea responded to my thoughts on presumptions, burdens of proofs and smoking guns. He’s taking the position that unless there is smoking gun evidence for a Founder’s unitarianism, we should interpret nominal references to Christianity and scripture made during America’s Founding era to mean the person was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, regenerate, believed the Bible infallible, etc. By the way, I don’t argue that all Founders should be presumed “non-Trinitarians” unless there is smoking gun evidence for Trinitarianism. Rather, that if all we have are a few nominal references to Christianity and the Bible and some contemporaries saying, “yes he’s a good Christian,” we shouldn’t presume Trinitarianism but rather need to put pieces of the puzzle together before we form a definite conclusion. Our conclusion might be an “I don’t know,” or subject to qualifiers like “probably,” and “in all likelihood.” That’s why I conclude Washington probably was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, but rather believed in the same system in which Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin believed.

In any event, the critic writes:

First of all, on “how orthodox Christian interpret the Bible.” Christians do not have to “interpret” the Bible in a certain way in order to be “orthodox.” The Bible is not unclear on issues like the deity of Christ, His atonement, the existence of one God in three Persons, etc. “Orthodoxy” is what the Bible teaches. “Unorthodoxy” disagree [sic] with what the Bible teaches. Different denominations interpret the Bible differently.

In light of those facts, the ONLY ASSUMPTION I AM MAKING IN OUR EXAMINATION OF THE FOUNDERS is that “Christian” means “Christian” (which is synonymous with “orthodox”) in each case of the Founders unless their [sic] is smoking gun evidence that proves otherwise. (Also, there is no difference between a regenerate Christian and a born-again Christian.)

I think there is an astounding arrogance bordering on delusion that holds orthodox Christians don’t “interpret” the Bible, but just “read” it and that those who disbelieve in the Trinity “disagree” with the Bible. Continue Reading »

This YouTube character makes some interesting points on the Westboro Baptist Church and the Christian Religion. Warning the language is not scholarly but rather more like what you hear in a Kevin Smith movie. And let me stress, I don’t support his uncivil verbal attacks on “Christians”; I just want to play this clip to explore the kernel of truth in his argument: That the Westboro Baptist Church read, follow and faithfully cite the same Bible as all other fundamentalists. Those evangelicals who argue that the WBC do not know their Bibles or are citing things that aren’t in the Bible are utterly deluding themselves. Period. They just adopt for the most mean spirited “literal” interpretation of the Bible as possible. They are well within the tradition of 5-points Calvinism. But again, they just opt for the meanest interpretation of 5-points Calvinism possible.

21st century Western societies are much nicer places than 16th Century Europe when Calvin operated. So mainstream Calvinists today, though they can sound mean, still tend to draw a line of civility that reflects 21st century thought and tend not so sound as mean as Calvin did in the 16th Century. It’s the Phelps’ that cross that line. Indeed Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for publicly denying the Trinity! You don’t get any meaner than that.

Indeed, in researching Calvin on Romans 13, I’ve found he said some mean things that no 21st Century mainstream Calvinist would cite, such that I thought I was listening to Fred Phelps. But in reality, it’s Phelps in all of his mean spirited glory who sounds like Calvin. For instance, one reason why Calvin held it’s sinful to rebel against political tyrants is that God may have sent a tyrannical King to punish a people!

From his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV:

25. The wicked ruler a judgment of God

But it we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that ruler to maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers themselves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of whatever description they may be, they derive their power from none but him. Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of big beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power.

I will not proceed further without subjoining some distinct passages to this effect. We need not labour to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord’s anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God.

There Calvin explains not only why something like the American Revolution — which would happen a few hundred years later — would be sinful, but answers the question: Why do bad things happen to good people? As Calvinist, the late D. James Kennedy used to put it, “they don’t, because there are no good people.” So if a bad thing happens to you like a burglary, murder or other personal tragedy, it’s God cursing man. Likewise, if a Saddam Hussein rose to power in America, political rebellion would be sinful because the tyrant is God’s punishment on America. You should now be able to see how the Phelps family are well within the tradition of 5-points Calvinism in thanking God for all of these terrible things that happen like 9-11 and Katrina.

Here. Money quote:

Arguably the most ridiculous claims made by Barton come from his book, America’s Godly Heritage, where he states that 52 of the 55 signers to the Declaration of Independence were “orthodox” or “evangelical Christians.” Are you kidding me???

Barton gets attacked quite a bit; and I’ve done some attacking myself. I think he’s brought a lot of the attacking on himself though.

That he’s not some nobody from Podunkville (even though, with his BA in math education from Oral Roberts University, he has the credentials of one), but is immensely influential in certain evangelical circles (i.e., the “homeschooled” crowd) has made it inevitable that his “research” would be put under the microscope and there would be a backlash against his claims.

The most thorough attacking is done by Chris Rodda — a bit shrill in her rhetoric and extremely harsh in her criticisms. But with Barton et al., it’s arguably “duly” harsh.

It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.

– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.

Interesting news that John McCain rejected the endorsement of and was consequently unendorsed by Rod Parsley and John Hagee. This illustrates the tension between orthodox Christianity and Americanism. I know that Parsley and Hagee are sort of goofballs and probably do not well represent orthodox Christianity. However, Parsley’s notion that Islam is a false religion is an authentic teaching of orthodox Christianity, just as Hagee’s idea that Roman Catholicism is an apostate religion is an authentic teaching of orthodox evangelical Protestantism.

Orthodox Christians need to grapple with the question “can one be a good Christian and a good American at the same time?” The two don’t always mix well and Christians would be well warned to distinguish between them. “Americanism” as put forth by America’s key Founders holds that most or all religions (including ISLAM — see Adams’ above quotation) are valid “religions.”

John McCain, as potential President, is going to be encouraged to tow the line of Americanism — as such he’s going to have to welcome Muslims as equal citizens and their faith as valid. The trouble he’s having with Hagee & Parsley well illustrates the tension between orthodox Christianity and Americanism. That Islam or arguably any non-Christian faith is “false” is a profoundly un-American idea and will not mix well in Presidential politics.

John McCain’s faith — that he believes in God and is a “Christian” in probably a nominal sense — well positions him for the American Presidency. The early Presidents and Abe Lincoln were NOT orthodox Trinitarian Christians and as such they helped establish a tradition of making anyone who believes in God feel fully included as an “American” citizen. America went from being almost all Protestant to religiously diverse because of the principles put forth by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln, not in spite of them.

There have been orthodox Trinitarian Christians as Presidents like Jimmy Carter and the current President. But they still tend to follow the tradition established by the early non-orthodox Presidents of pretending all religions worship the same God. Presidents, as public figure heads, are encouraged to talk about God — quite a bit actually — but downplay or avoid specific doctrines like Trinitarian orthodoxy.

You could tell Ronald Reagen devoutly believed in God from his public proclamations; but I’m hard pressed to find evidence of his traditional Christianity from the public speeches he made as President (I’m not even sure if he was one).

When George W. Bush claimed the Muslims’ “Allah” was the same God he, as a Christian, worshipped, he was being a “good American” President, not necessarily a good orthodox Trinitarian Christian.

Over the years, I’ve witnessed and been involved in very meticulous debates over the America’s Founding Fathers and their religious beliefs. One reason why the different sides can come to such differing conclusions on matters like “what was George Washington’s religious faith?” is the historical record contains some ambiguities.

That’s where presumptions and smoking guns come into play. No matter what one’s presumption, when you have smoking gun quotations (like, for instance, when Jefferson explicitly rejected EVERY single tenet of orthodox Christianity as he did in his October 31, 1819 letter to William Short) then usually one concedes the point. If there aren’t smoking gun quotations but rather “pieces” of the puzzle to put together, each side tends to resolve the ambiguities in favor of a particular presumption. Continue Reading »