Cite?
Now, if you’re referring to the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, there were 55 of them, most of who were members of some major denomination. In that light, I think it’s rather implausible to argue that they “didn’t support organized religion.”
You know, JThunder, I’m gay, but I don’t support gay sex in the workplace. I think it’d be inappropriate for my lover and I to make horny monkey love on the conference table during the staff meeting. It seems to me that there’s a more appropriate time and place to be practicing what I believe in.
If the Constitutional Conventioneers wanted to make this a Christian nation, then they had a great opportunity; all they had to do was write it into the Constitution. Voila! One nation, under God. Instead, they wrote the document to be intenionally, unmistakeably secular.
Seems to me they realized that there was a more appropriate time and place to be practicing what they believed in.
Hell, it’d get me into work on time, let me tell you…
jayjay
Several points:
First, being a member of a church does not imply a belief that the government should promote religion (say, by doing such silly things as having children indoctrinated with the “under God” version of the Pledge). The founders clearly believed that religion was a matter of personal choice, in which the government had no business.
Secondly, the membership in various churches for many of these men was purely formal – as well as being a matter of political expediency. To see what I mean, follow the link in my last post on George Washington. Though formally an Episcopalian, he was never known to take communion, and was thought by many to be a Deist. He continued his church attendance in part to support his wife in her beliefs, and in part because the church was the center of power in local communities. (As it often still is in many communities today – which tends to put a lot of hypocrites in the pews.)
Adams was a church member as well (I don’t remember which denomination; probably Congregationalist), but you can see by the quotes above what he actually thought of Christianity.
For that matter, Jefferson and Madison, the two most ardent promoters of the concept of separation of church and state, had themselves been church members. (Episcopalian, I believe.) That certainly didn’t mean they supported the imposition of religion by the government.
Lastly, it is important to understand the political climate of the time. Then, as now, political candidates were subject to attack by religious zealots. Jefferson frequently defended himself against charges of atheism, and was circumspect in his public statements on religious matters as a result. Thomas Paine, whose Common Sense was sometimes referred to as “The Atheist’s Bible” (but which in fact smacks of Deism), was also subject to criticism for his lack of piety. (In fact, there are some tantalizing hints that Paine may have ghost-written the Declaration of Independence, but that because he was so much of a political hot potato he agreed not to take public credit.)
So again, political expediency probably dictated that many of these men have at least a formal affiliation with a church. And while many of these men were publicly Christan, their private correspondence reveals the Deist influence on their thoughts.
Adams is a good example. Publicly, he sometimes railed against Jefferson for Jefferson’s lack of Christian piety, and his underlings attacked Jefferson on that ground when the two men squared off in the Presidential election. But in later years, after both men had retired from politics, Adams let down his guard with Jefferson (see the correspondence above) to reveal that Adams himself was no Christian.
Oops. I meant The Age of Reason, not Common Sense.
The Age of Reason authored by Thomas Paine was sometimes (wrongly) referred to as “The Atheist’s Bible,” when in fact it is a Deist piece.
(Also, pardon the coding errors.)
Logical fallacy here.
How probative is their being nominal members of some church with regard to their support for organised religion?
Even if you accept the proposition that they supported organised religion, what does that have to do with the proposition that they preferred religion to be a matter for personal life and not an appropriate area for government involvement?
<<Sigh>> People, people, people. You’re missing the point.
I was addressing the specific claim that the founding fathers “did not support organized religion.” This does not, by any means, imply “a belief that the government should promote religion” (to use spoke-'s phrasing). Please do not confuse the two.
Is is plausible that these people would belong to organized religions – in particular, several mainstream, highly visible denominations – and yet not be supportive thereof? I think that would be a stretch. Now one might suppose that one or two of them joined for insidious purposes of their own, but fifty of them? Virtually tne entire Continental Congress? I find that hard to believe.
BTW, even if one surmises that the delegates only belonged to these denominations as matters of convenience, that still doesn’t mean that they did not support organized religion. Once again, the burden of proof rests on the critics to show that convenience was their only motive for belonging.
Clearly, it is reckless to conclude that they did not support organized religion, especially on the basis of such shaky speculation.
Well, as I believe I’ve said, different founding fathers had different opinions about organized religion. Some supported it, including probably the Continental Congressmen who were clergymen, and others, most notably Jefferson and Paine didn’t.
This, of course, as JThunder said, distinct from their opinions about the role of religion in government, or state-sponsored religion.
My boss told me today that Atheists have NO Constitutional protection. He said “it says freedom OF Religion, implying you should have a religion.”
I stammered something like “don’t you think we should have freedom from religion as well, and shouldn’t we be thinking in more global terms”
Luckily a co-worker saved me.
Sua, Jefferson was serving as American minister to France at the time, so how could Virginia name him as a delegate? Farrand doesn’t mention that he was named. Are you sure you’re not thinking of Patrick Henry? Farrand states that Virginia named Henry, who declined.
And said, if my high school history book was correct (a big if), that he “smelled a rat” about the whole thing.
In reality, the Constitutional Convention stepped beyond its stated bounds by an incredible amount. They were supposed to revise the Articles of Confederation, not create an entirely new government.
Not that I’m complaining, mind you…
jayjay
Sua, I must respectfully disagree that the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the founding of the country exclusive to all other activities. It had a mandate to revise the Articles of Confederation, which it expanded on its own authority to become the drafting of a new Constitution. But our country already existed in the only sense countries do exist: by the recognition of foreign powers. To say that Jefferson was not a founder of the country is to overlook one of the major figures (for better or worse is a matter of opinion). Jefferson drafted the first statement of our principles, the Declaration of Independence, and influenced Madison a great deal in the initial phase of forming ideas for the new constitution. Jefferson had a great deal to do with the push to get a Bill of Rights. Pardon the comparison, but saying Jefferson was not a founder because he wasn’t at the constitutional convention is a bit like saying that Satan has nothing to do with evil because Adam and Eve choose to sin, etc.
The country had existed for 13 years. However, the Constitution is the one document that establishes the scope and nature of our governmental system. Jefferson was a founder, yes, but if you’re offering evidence about what our government is supposed to be like, the Declaration of Independence is like founders’ private papers – interesting but not dispositive.
Unofficial talk about what they might have wished our nation to be like is not relevant to the Constitution, which defines what our government is like. It is quite clear from the Constitution that the state is not a Christian state.
In that case, you’re the one missing the point. And you’re making a straw man argument besides.
Who here has said that the founding fathers “did not support organized religion”? (Whatever “support” means.) What we’re debating is whether the US was founded as a “Christian nation.”
As shown by the many cites in this thread, a number of the most prominent founders, including the ones who were the driving forces behind the drafting of the Constitution, weren’t even Christian. I’m pretty sure those founders weren’t looking to create a “Christian nation.”
I’m glad you asked. Tremendously glad.
dal_tigmar said it, early in this thread. In fact, if you look at my post (to which you responded), I quoted his exact words. To wit,
Since those were dal_tigmar’s exact words, I don’t think it’s fair to say that I’m “making a straw man argument.”
Considering the quote actually says "the philosophy of the founders didn’t support organized religion" (emphasis mine), I’d suggest you are still constructing a strawman.
I think that’s a foolish distinction. One’s philosophy dictates one’s beliefs. By what strange logic can one claim that their philosophy did not support organized religion, but that they themselves did? Were their beliefs in opposition to the philosophies that guided them?
Besides which, as Captain Amazing pointed out, some of the founding fathers were clergymen. If we are to claim that these clergymen did not support organized religion (or that their “philosophy” did not support it), then I think one must be prepared to substantiate this claim in great detail.
Even if we ignore the clergymen, what about the others founding fathers? Some of them might not have endorsed organized religion, but what of the others? I’ve seen assertions, but I have yet to see any solid evidence that they were unsupportive of organized religion. If one is to make this claim, one should be prepared to back it up.
Eh. By seizing on an offhand remark by dal_tigmar, and making that the primary focus of your argument, you’re still missing the point.
Here’s the point (I’ll put it in caps so it’s easy to see): THE US WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A “CHRISTIAN NATION.”
Do you seriously dispute this? If so on what basis? --Bearing in mind the evidence presented in this thread that the principal authors of both the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson) and the Constitution (Madison) weren’t even Christian.
And I’m not disputing that. I was addressing a very specific claim made by dal_timgar. That’s all. Please don’t put words in my mouth.