Our Founders Were Not Fundamentalists

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By HARVEY WASSERMAN

This weekend's New York Times Sunday Magazine highlights yet another mob of extremists using the Texas School Board to baptize our children's textbooks.

This endless, ever-angry escalating assault on our Constitution by crusading theocrats could be obliterated with the effective incantation of two names: Benjamin Franklin, and Deganawidah.

But first, let's do some history:

1) Actual Founder-Presidents #2 through #6---John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams---were all freethinking Deists and Unitarians; what Christian precepts they embraced were moderate, tolerant and open-minded.

2) Actual Founder-President #1, George Washington, became an Anglican as required for original military service under the British, and occasionally quoted scripture. But he vehemently opposed any church-state union. In a 1790 letter to the Jews of Truro, he wrote: The "Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistances, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens." A 1796 treaty he signed says "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Washington rarely went to church and by some accounts refused last religious rites.

3) Washington was also the nation's leading brewer, and since most Americans drank much beer (water could be lethal in the cities) they regularly trembled before the keg, not the altar. Like Washington, Jefferson and Madison, virtually all American farmers raised hemp and its variations.

4) Jefferson produced a personal Bible from which he edited out all reference to the "miraculous" from the life of Jesus, whom he considered both an activist and a mortal.

5) Tom Paine's COMMON SENSE sparked the Revolution with nary a mention of Jesus or Christianity. His Deist Creator established the laws of Nature, endowed humans with Free Will, then left.

6) The Constitution never mentions the words "Christian" or "Jesus" or "Christ."

7) Revolutionary America was filled with Christians whose commitment to toleration and diversity was completely adverse to the violent, racist, misogynist, anti-sex theocratic Puritans whose "City on the Hill" meant a totalitarian state. Inspirational preachers like Rhode Island's Roger Williams and religious groups like the Quakers envisioned a nation built on tolerance and love for all.

8) The US was founded less on Judeo-Christian beliefs than on the Greco-Roman love for dialog and reason. There are no contemporary portraits of any Founder wearing a crucifix or church garb. But Washington was famously painted half-naked in the buff toga of the Roman Republic, which continues to inspire much of our official architecture.

9) The great guerilla fighter (and furniture maker) Ethan Allen was an aggressive atheist; his beliefs were common among the farmers, sailors and artisans who were the backbone of Revolutionary America.

10) America's most influential statesman, thinker, writer, agitator, publisher, citizen-scientist and proud liberal libertine was---and remains---Benjamin Franklin. He was at the heart of the Declaration, Constitution and Treaty of Paris ending the Revolution. The ultimate Enlightenment icon, Franklin's Deism embraced a pragmatic love of diversity. As early America's dominant publisher he, Paine and Jefferson printed the intellectual soul of the new nation.

11) Franklin deeply admired the Ho-de-no-sau-nee (Iroquois) Confederacy of what's now upstate New York. Inspired by the legendary peacemaker Deganawidah, this democratic congress of five tribes had worked "better than the British Parliament" for more than two centuries. It gave us the model for our federal structure and the images of freedom and equality that inspired both the French and American Revolutions.

It's no accident today's fundamentalist crusaders and media bloviators (Rev. Limbaugh, St. Beck) seek to purge our children's texts of all native images except as they are being forceably converted or killed.

Today's fundamentalists would have DESPISED the actual Founders. Franklin's joyous, amply reciprocated love of women would evoke their limitless rage. Jefferson's paternities with his slave mistress Sally Hemings, Paine's attacks on the priesthood, Hamilton's bastardly philandering, the grassroots scorn for organized religion---all would draw howls of righteous right-wing rage.

Which may be why theocratic fundamentalists are so desperate to sanitize and fictionalize what's real about our history.

God forbid our children should know of American Christians who embraced the Sermon on the Mount and renounced the Book of Revelations…or natives who established democracy on American soil long before they saw the first European…or actual Founders who got drunk, high and laid on their way to writing the Constitution.

Faith-based tyranny is anti-American. So are dishonest textbooks. It's time to fight them both.

link

[Ali G. 37]

Washington rarely went to church and by some accounts refused last religious rites.

All of the historical documents and artifacts that I have seen first-hand at George Washington's house seem to suggest otherwise.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Booyah

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All of the historical documents and artifacts that I have seen first-hand at George Washington's house seem to suggest otherwise.

from Virginia Places:

Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.

When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."

Clear evidence of his personal theology is lacking, even on his deathbed when he died a "death of civility" without expressions of Christian hope. His failure to document beliefs in conventional dogma, such as a life after death, is a clue that he may not qualify as a conventional Christian. Instead, Washington may be closer to a "warm deist" than a standard Anglican in colonial Virginia.

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html

Edited February 17, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Ali G. 37]

By HARVEY WASSERMAN

link

Like anything, the devil is in the detail. Interesting site this came from.

Here are some other readings they endorse..

Edited February 17, 2010 by Booyah

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Like anything, the devil is in the detail. Interesting site this came from.

Here are some other readings they endorse..

from the website:

This Web site was developed for the Geography of Virginia class (GEOG380) taught during the Fall semester at George Mason University. Please do not assume that the material on this site is, in any way, an official statement of the university. My own perspective on Virginia places continues to evolve and shift as I learn more about the state, so don't assume that every sentence on this site reflects my current point of view either.

Some of the material on these Web pages is intended to stimulate college students to think on their own, and some statements on this Web site may not be politically-correct. They may jar the sensibilties of the casual reader while (hopefully) shaking up the thinking of the students enrolled in the course. A good student should question the conventional wisdom, before rejecting it or accepting it. Developing critical thinking skills requires examining issues and events from different perspectives - in this case, with a special/spatial twist on Virginia history, Virginia ecology, Virginia economics, etc.

If you find a statement to be incorrect or objectionable, please contact me via e-mail at first. You may have spotted an error or inconsistency that I should correct. However, you may have reacted to some content that was supposed to generate discussion, rather than serve as the "final answer."

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/about.html

[NickD 203]

The Free Masons had a lot to do with separation of religious from state, a very new principle at the time well before the revolution in this country. But then, they were more masons than political figures.

We are still having some problems with Colombia, a very religious run state until as recently as 1991 when civil divorce was first passed into law. Before that time, no such thing as a divorce, Catholic Church will only grant annulments that were based more on money you contributed to than anything else. The corruption of the religious powers throughout Europe and here as well is one of the key factors that led to the revolution.

No matter how you cut the mustard, the religious and the corporations are nothing more than a dictatorship, and these concepts oppose any notion of individual freedom.

Don't need to quote sources on this, just open your eyes.

[Ali G. 37]

I always love these sorts of pick one or two comments from random people in the past and use them to support an opinion. This practice is quite common in the US; as is the other practice of refusing to consider historical context, when applying an amendment to 2010. Do you believe the founding fathers would have wanted the weapons available in 2010 to be accessible by every man and his dog and be covered by the second amendment? Do you believe the founding fathers wanted organized crimes and a range of other pathetic criminals to have their rights protected, while Americans lay on the street, in their own blood? Do you believe the separation of church and state meant that anything relating to religion be thrown out yet anything related to atheism be endorsed and shoved down peoples' throats? We all know how poorly the US ranks amongst OECD nations for reading, so I am not surprised people fail to understand context and tend to take things literally.

Yes, the reality is that the founding fathers were not fundamentalists, but that works both ways. They certainly were not some sort of hippie burn the flag, down with America, liberal nut job either.

I'll ask another question. When comparing Aus to the US, who do you think has a better system (approach) regarding separation of church and state? Which approach do you think is more highly regarded and practiced abroad? As my good friend scandal once said, people tend to copy what works best. Clearly you think the US approach of banning any government participation, acknowledgment or encouragement of any religion works best, except atheism of course; a specific belief which is evidently both encouraged and endorsed. On the other hand, the later developed Australian approach still ensures the government does not favor any one particular belief, however, the government can and does celebrate and acknowledge the various beliefs of their constituents. That is, the beliefs of their people.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Booyah

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Steven has a problem because they were Christians. If they were ANY other religion he would be 'celebrating diversity'.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Except atheism of course; a specific belief which is clearly both encouraged and endorsed.

The US government clearly encourages and endorses the specific belief that there is no God? This is news to me.

[Ali G. 37]

The US government clearly encourages and endorses the specific belief that there is no God? This is news to me.

A lot of things tend to be news for you. Go live in any other first world country then come tell me that the US does not systematically only endorse and encourage atheism. When a government only encourages one belief, then it has failed in being fair and honest.

Steven has a problem because they were Christians. If they were ANY other religion he would be 'celebrating diversity'.

I am sure the founding fathers wanted this too..

from the website:

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/about.html

I was talking about the source of the OP..

Edited February 17, 2010 by Booyah

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven has a problem because they were Christians. If they were ANY other religion he would be 'celebrating diversity'.

Being Catholic (yes, we are Christian), I don't have a problem with the religion itself. I have a problem when a certain sect of Christians like the Texas School Board want to remove facts from history books they don't like. And doing so with the viewpoint that this country's Founders were proponents of infusing Christianity into public life when the facts say otherwise.

[Ali G. 37]

Being Catholic (yes, we are Christian), I don't have a problem with the religion itself. I have a problem when a certain sect of Christians like the Texas School Board want to remove facts from history books they don't like. And doing so with the viewpoint that this country's Founders were proponents of infusing Christianity into public life when the facts say otherwise.

Why would they? Once again context is key. What percentage of people back then would have been atheist or otherwise? Furthermore, the reason they did not infuse it was because they wanted to get away from England's model of only supporting the monarchy's Church of England. If people learned to consider and factored in historical context, a hell of a lot of America's woes in 2010 would be solved. E.G. The context of the second amendment.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Booyah

[one...two...tree 2,762]

George Washington and Deism

Deists have a great example of toleration, perseverance, and integrity in the person of fellow Deist George Washington.

Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.

Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."

In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."

On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."

link

[Calypso 465]

Although I sometimes question the veracity of what NatGeo and History.com show, I enjoy watching their special featured clips.

They said that what we see on paintings is not the real George Washington. The first president instructed his painters to paint him with high or dominant cheekbones because he knew that having such cheekbones is a sign of strength for a man especially for a general. However, he had poor to almost no teeth so his face was sagging. He would sometimes put something inside his mouth (like cotton) to keep his cheekbones appear full.

As for history and books, I don't mind corrections to straighten old and erroneous info. For example, a few years back in the Philippines, "new historians" stated that:

1. The Philippine archipelago is not made of 7, 107 islands (grrr... and I had to memorize that back in grade one believing that was right... I'm glad at least they acknowledge that they can't run around the country to count each and every island during high tide or low tide . What about the islands in Indonesia and Japan? )

2. It is wrong to say that "Ferdinand Magellan discovered the Philippines." Well, we have known that all along because we were taught since grade school that first came the Aetas, followed by the Indonesians, then the Malays. Historians just don't find the word "discovered" appropriate. Yes, and it took them decades or even centuries to notice that.

New historians and other scientists surely come and they have the power to verify existing records. I don't mind. After all, Copernicus corrected Ptolemy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is wrong to say that "Ferdinand Magellan discovered the Philippines." Well, we have known that all along because we were taught since grade school that first came the Aetas, followed by the Indonesians, then the Malays. Historians just don't find the word "discovered" appropriate. Yes, and it took them decades or even centuries to notice that.

The Native Americans take issue with that word also, when applied to Columbus.