Does American Deism Negate a Christian Heritage?

Posted by John R. Houk

© March 29, 2015

 

Comment dialogue between myself and Matthew Jeffero on the Facebook Group REPUBLICANS – CONSERVATIVES -TEA PARTY PATRIOTS- RIGHT WING AMERICANS to the SlantRight 2.0 post “Judeo-Christian Values are in U.S. Constitution”.

 

My central contention is even if the majority of the Founding Fathers were more Deist than Christian, American Deists swung toward Christian principles and Christian Morality as central to Constitutional governing. The Founding Fathers that were Deists were Critical of Christianity, yet they criticized as unbelievable the supernatural acts recorded in the Bible and NOT the standard of Moral living life in the Bible. Deist Christians felt the Catholic and Protestant Clergy had a history of hypocritical manipulation of the Christian laity which led to internecine wars between Christians when Christian principles would have solved or assuage conflict.

 

James Madison known as the Founder of the Constitution  

 

As a Deist Madison was critical of Christianity being a part of the Federal government his quote in the picture demonstrates Christian Morality should be promoted.

 

 

The original post on SlantRight 2.0 was a Google+ dialogue between myself and Sifu about the God of Christianity being an influence on America’s Founding Fathers. Matthew’s stickling point is that the Founding Fathers were preeminently Deists hence it would be hogwash to believe America has Christian roots.

 

Matthew gets a little scruffy with me about his concept of Deism as opposed to my thoughts which claim American Deists (in the majority) were quite different than the European Deism influenced by the French Revolution. I contend that even if the majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists their mindset was still one that Christian morality and ethics is the foundation for good governance. Thus I answered Matthew’s snarky question, “Do I need to post a link of the definition of the word? Geez man, read a book,” with a lot of quotes from those who examine Christian/American Deism vs. French/European Deism.

 

Thomas Jefferson on the Moral Principles of Jesus

 

As a Deist Jefferson was critical of Christianity being a part of the Federal government his quote in the picture demonstrates Christian Morality should be promoted.

 

JRH 3/29/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

 

Matthew Jeffero If you looked at most of the founding fathers they were deist. Pesty (I suspect Matthew means “pesky”) facts, kind of gets in the way. March 21 at 11:11am

 

John Houk Actually Matthew Most of the Founding Fathers were Christian Deists. Meaning they believed that Christian Morality makes for good government. This is unlike French influenced European Deists that tended more toward libertine atheism and an unnatural hatred for the Christian paradigm in any fashion. Those are the pesky facts. March 21 at 12:10pm

 

Benjamin Franklin on the Moral System of Jesus Christ

 

Reputed as a Deist Benjamin Franklin still believed the Moral system and the Faith of Christianity was the best the World had ever seen; thus it is the morality of Christianity that makes good people.

 

Matthew Jeffero Do you know deism is. Do I need to post a link of the definition of the word? Geez man, read a book. March 21 at 2:39pm

 

John Houk Okay Matthew here is something to read:

 

 

Two Paths for Deism:

 

…

 

What few people know is there are two deisms, the atheistic and religiously hostile deism of the French Revolution, and the more amicable deism of America and England. They posit two differing worldviews on issues of liberty and tolerance. English Deism and Freemasonry became the foundation of the American Revolution while the Enlightenment French Humanism became the basis of the bloody French Revolution and later Marxism and its offshoots.

 

…

 

What is called radical deism today is better called deistic Humanism. This is a philosophy, not a religion. We find at its head Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, the mass murderer Maximilian Robespierre, and the radical Jacobins. The Humanist French Revolution sought to destroy all traditional European institutions including Christianity, seeking to replace this with “enlightened” philosophy and reason as a basis for society. Oh yes, being led by ‘enlightened’ despots.

 

…

 

This radical deism did much to undermine revealed religions such as Christianity. The result has not been ‘enlightenment’ of the masses, but the rise irrationality and secular extremism. …

 

…

 

We can call it what we will be deistic Humanism, French deism, etc. it’s not a religion, but a secular philosophy. Voltaire had replaced the original understanding of God with Aristotle’s Prime Mover, which science has discredited today.

 

The French Revolution was based on reason alone and led to only bloodshed and tyranny. Reason without an underpinning of God or a higher power leads only to ruin. …

 

…

 

The Five Articles of Classical Deism

 

In England, Deism was critically concerned with the origins of religion, but positive in moral and religious affirmation. Early English Deists believed that the Bible contained important truths, but they rejected the concept that it was divinely inspired or inerrant. They were leaders in the study of the Bible as a historical (rather than an inspired, revealed) document. Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book “De Veritate,” (1624), he described the “Five Articles” of English Deists:

 

[1] belief in the existence of a single supreme God

 
[2] humanity’s duty is to revere God

 
[3] linkage of worship with practical morality

 
[4] God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins

 
[5] good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death.

 

… (Dissecting Deism Past and Present; By Lewis Loflin; Sullivan.County.com)

 

++++++++++++++++++++

Christian deism

 

Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Christianity. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings—but not divinity—of Jesus. Corbett and Corbett (1999) cite John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as exemplars.[¹] …

 

It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States “have tended to place the founders’ religion into one of three categories—non-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity.”[⁸] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[⁹] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised “nature’s God” in the “Declaration of Independence” (1776) and edited the “Jefferson Bible“—a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out.

 

…

 

Christian deists see no paradox in adopting the values and ideals espoused by Jesus without believing he was God. Without providing examples or citations, one author maintains, “A number of influential 17th- and 18th-century thinkers claimed for themselves the title of ‘Christian deist’ because they accepted both the Christian religion based on revelation and a deistic religion based on natural reason. This deistic religion was consistent with Christianity but independent of any revealed authority. Christian deists often accepted revelation because it could be made to accord with natural or rational religion.”[¹¹]

 

… (Christian deism; Wikipedia; This page was last modified on 4 December 2014, at 12:03)

 

++++++++++++++++++

“Christian Deism is a natural religion that maintains a firm belief in God the Creator; and strives to follow the natural commandments of God, as taught by one of the greatest teachers of natural religion, Jesus of Nazareth.” (WHAT IS CHRISTIAN DEISM? Christian Deism; © Copyright 2015 – Christian Deism)

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

Also Read:

 

Christian Deism; Enlightenment Deism.

 

Religion and Government, Are We a Christian Nation? By BILL BAILEY; TheFederalistPaper.org)

 

– March 28, 2015 5:31pm

 

John Adams: Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

 

John Adams as the second President of the United States of America was definitely closer to traditional Christianity than many of the other Founders.

 

George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

______________________________

The Founding Father photos with quotes followed by my micro-comment were not a part of the original comment left on the Facebook comment posts left on the group REPUBLICANS – CONSERVATIVES -TEA PARTY PATRIOTS- RIGHT WING AMERICANS. Minor editing work with good old fashioned spellcheck. No slight is meant to Matthew. Comments are typically something written on the fly and misspellings, grammatical errors and so on happen to all of us making comments.

 

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1

John R. Houk

© March 18, 2014

 

On May 13 I posted some thoughts entitled “The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories”. The thoughts were inspired by one of those misguided people that sincerely believe the U.S. Constitution separates Church and State to the extent that not only is the State prohibited to interfere in religion (religion = Christianity in 1780s), but also that We the People (i.e. the voters) are prohibited from both injecting Christian morality into a limited government AND that government is prohibited from allowing any public institution, policy or building supported by taxpayer money to be used for religious purposes.

 

At the end of my thoughts I posted an edited version of the comments giving it the title “Comment to: Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA”. The (unedited version) comment was posted on my NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR) blog. The commenter attributed to himself an obvious pseudonym – dougindeap.

 

So this is what I am going to do. I am going to make the effort to refute dougindeap’s assertions a bit at a time.  This undoubtedly will result in several parts to come close to refuting dougindeap.

 

The first paragraph has many of those assertions which are skewed by half-truths and downright inaccuracies.

 

“Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

 

This above assertion is absolutely FALSE. Separation of powers as well as government Branch checks and balances are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. There is ABSOLUTELY no enumeration of the so-called separation of Church-State in the Constitution EXCEPT the enumeration that Congress can make NO law to establish a State religion (meaning Christian Church in the 1780s) and prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

 

First Amendment

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold emphasis mine)

 

For simple understanding’s sake let me rehash what is often referred to as the Establishment Clause. Congress specifically, cannot enact legislation that makes a Christian Church a tax supported State institution. The separation is specifically one-way! Congress is to stay out of the religion-church business. There is no specified prohibition for Christian Churches to be a moral influence on government. In fact the Constitution’s Preamble should be used as a guiding principle in constitutional interpretation (Hello SCOTUS):

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Bold emphasis mine)

 

Here is a definition of the meaning of the thought “general welfare” from The Free Dictionary:

 

The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

 

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution. (Bold emphasis mine)

 

The Free Dictionary listing for “general welfare” goes from the broad meaning found in the Preamble to a specific context carried on from Article 1 Section 8. The essay’s context from Article one is the dispute about States’ Rights versus the power of the Federal government pertaining to taxation. That is beyond the scope of what we are looking at here, but it is interesting to note that The Free Dictionary cites a SCOTUS decision tipping the scale to the Federal government 150 years after the Constitution was enacted. In the matter of taxing and spending the SCOTUS chose the Hamilton argument over the Madison argument meaning the Federal government won. It is my opinion that an interpretation of the Constitution that took a 150 years to find solidification is something that needs a bit more stare decisis to make the Hamilton argument such as the Federal government trumping State’ Rights to be cast in stone.

 

THUS the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers understanding of the general welfare included morality. Since the Founding Fathers’ milieu was the 1760s through and a bit beyond the 1790s their concept of morality was not based on a Secular Humanism devoid of God and God the Creator’s morality established in the Bible.

 

This is where Left Wingers would dispute my assertion that Christian morality was the norm with the popular humanist theology of the Founding Fathers’ day called deism. What Left Wingers fail to include in their arguments screaming that most of the Founding Fathers were deists is that America had one form of deism and Europe (specifically the French of their Revolution) had a deism more akin to Anti-Christian morality.

 

American deists were Christians in practice but not big believers in Biblical miracles that the science of their day may explain as impossible. I found an article that is actually balanced in its outlook on the faith of the Founding Fathers providing a good explanation of the Founders’ Deism and the absolute Deism that flowed from the French.

 

…  [T]here are those who argue that because our Founding Fathers were devoted Christians who held to an orthodox Christian faith, the state and the church in America are already linked together, and that if America as a nation loses its uniquely Christian flavor, the church will fail in its task as well. They see America as a unique country that holds a special place in God’s plan for reaching the world. Additionally, they argue that we enjoy God’s special protection and blessings because of this Christian founding, blessings which will be lost if Christians lose control of the nation.

At the other end of the religious and political spectrum is the group who portray America and its founding as a thoroughly secular project. They argue that by the time the Revolution had occurred in the colonies, Enlightenment rationalism had won the day in the minds and hearts of the young nation’s leaders. They often add that the drive towards religious tolerance was the result of a decline in belief in God and an attempt to remove religious influence from America’s future.

 

For all those involved in this debate, the specific beliefs of our Founders are very important. Those who argue that America was founded by godless men who established a godless Constitution are, for the most part, wrong. Belief in God was practically universal among our Founding Founders. On the other hand, those who argue that our Founders were mostly devoted Christians who sought to establish a Christian nation devoted to the gospel of Jesus Christ are not giving us the full picture either. Because both sides in this debate tend to define America by the religious faith of our Founders, both sides tend to over-simplify the religious beliefs of those early patriots.

 

It’s important, therefore, to consider the specific beliefs of some of our Founding Fathers so that we might get a clearer picture of religion in that era and avoid either of the two extremes usually presented. As we look into the actions and words of specific Revolutionary era leaders we will find that their beliefs represent a mixture of … READ THE REST (Deism and America’s Founders; By Don Closson; Probe Ministries; © 2008)

 

Then there is a French deism which is Anti-Christian in its tenants and leans toward atheism. Most of the articles I read seem to credit Voltaire bringing a form of English Deism to France.

 

Deism entered France, but only its materialistic and revolutionary phases were seized upon, to the exclusion of religious values which had never been lost in England or America. French Deism stood outside of theology and laid the groundwork for atheism, secular humanism, and cultural relativism. American Deists were mainly influenced by English Deism and perhaps French Deist Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

 

Michel de Montaigne is the father of moral and cultural relativism. It argues (falsely in my opinion) that all cultures be it cannibals in mud huts or Paris are equal because they rest on cultural habit rather than absolute truth. Who are Europeans to insist that Brazilian cannibals who merely consume dead human flesh instead of wasting it are morally inferior to Europeans who persecute and oppress those of whom they disapprove? This would also apply to morals as well: If we cannot be certain that our values are God-given, then we have no right to impose them by force on others. Thus homosexually, abortion, sex with animals, sex with children, etc. are a private matter that society has no right to regulate or interfere with.

 

French Deism was anti-Catholic and anti-religious in general, shading into skepticism, atheism, and materialism. When people speak of Deism today they often think of French Deism, which has little in common with English/American Deism which was known often as Unitarianism. While Deism began in England and influenced Voltaire, he would strip away all of the religious aspects. (Voltaire’s Deism; From Sullivan-county.com; Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.)

 

French Deist Rousseau in contrast to Voltaire was not quite anti-religion; however Rousseau thought society exists best with a State religion that is not Christian but adheres to what he felt was a natural morality inherent in humankind. Hello State control of people and an absence of personal Liberty.

 

J. J. Rousseau (1712 – 1778) gave quite a different tendency to Deism. Accepting in the main the sensualism of Locke and the metaphysics of Clarke and Newton, he maintains after the manner of Shaftesbury and Diderot a belief in inborn moral instincts which he distinguishes as “sentiments” from mere acquired ideas; he is true to the position of Deism in connecting this moral “sentiment” with a belief in God, and he protests against the separation between the two which the skepticism of Diderot had brought about. He was influenced by Richardson, as well as by Locke.

 

“Sentiment” becomes the basis of a metaphysical system built up out of the data of experience under the influence of the Deistic philosophy, but redeemed from formalism by constant reference to sentimentality and emotion as the principal sources of religion. The nature of religion is not dogmatic but moralistic, practical, and emotional. Rousseau, therefore, finds the essence of religion, not (like Voltaire) in the cultivated intellect, but in the naive and disinterested understanding of the uncultured. Conscious, rational progress in civilization, no less than supernaturalism in Church and State, is an outcome of the fall, when the will chose intellectual progress in preference to simple felicity.

 

With Rousseau natural religion takes on a new meaning; “nature” is no longer universality or rationality in the cosmic order, in contrast to special supernatural and positive phenomena, but primitive simplicity and sincerity, in contrast to artificiality and studied reflection.

In his scheme of the rise of religions he gets out from the common standpoint of the discrepancies and contradictions prevailing among historic creeds. Yet positive religion to him is not so much the product of ignorance and fear as the corruption of the original instinct through the selfishness of man, who has erected rigid creeds that he might arrogate to himself unwarranted privilege or escape the obligations of natural morality.

 

…

 

Note that freedom as Rousseau defines it has nothing to do with individual liberty. Rousseau’s views on society are very influential on the political left/liberalism since the 1960s. To quote another source:

 

Man is by nature good; society is the cause of corruption and vice.

 

In a state of nature, the individual is characterized by healthy self-love; self-love is accompanied by a natural compassion.

 

In society, natural self-love becomes corrupted into a venal pride, which seeks only the good opinion of others and, in so doing, causes the individual to lose touch with his or her true nature; the loss of one’s true nature ends in a loss of freedom.

 

While society corrupts human nature, it also represents the possibility of its perfection in morality.

 

Human interaction requires the transformation of natural freedom into moral freedom; this transformation is based on reason and provides the foundation for a theory of political right.

 

A just society replaces the individual’s natural freedom of will with the general will; such a society is based on a social contract by which each individual alienates all of his or her natural rights to create a new corporate person, the sovereign, the repository of the general will.

 

The individual … READ ENTIRETY (The French Deists: J. J. Rousseau; Compiled by Lewis Loflin; Sullivan-county.com)

 

The culmination of the radicalism of French Deism is in Robespierre.

 

The Cult of the Supreme Being (French: Culte de l’Être suprême) was a form of deism established in France by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution.^[1] It was intended to become the state religion of the new French.^[2]a

 

Origins

 

The French Revolution had given birth to (sic) many radical changes in France. One of the most fundamental for the hitherto Roman Catholic nation was the official rejection of religion. The first major organized school of thought emerged under the umbrella name of the Cult of Reason. Advocated by extreme radicals like Jacques Hébert and Antoine, the Cult of Reason distilled a mixture of largely atheistic views into a humanocentric philosophy. No gods at all were worshipped in the Cult – the guiding principle was devotion to the abstract conception of Reason.^[3] This bold rejection of all divinity appalled the rectitudinous Robespierre. Its offense was compounded by the “scandalous scenes” and “wild masquerades” attributed to its practice.^[4] In late 1793, Robespierre delivered a fiery denunciation of the Cult and its proponents ^[5] and proceeded to give his own vision of proper Revolutionary religion. Devised almost entirely by his own hand, Le culte de l’Être suprême was formally announced before the French National Convention on 7 May 1794.^[6]

 

Religious tenets

 

Robespierre believed that reason is only a means to an end, and the singular end is Virtue. He sought to move beyond simple deism (often described as Voltairean by its adherents) to a new and, in his view, more rational devotion to the godhead. The primary principles of the Cult of the Supreme Being were a belief in the existence of a god and the immortality of the human soul.^[7] Though not inconsistent with Christian doctrine, these beliefs were put to the service of Robespierre’s fuller meaning, which was of a type of civic-minded, public virtue he attributed to the Greeks and Romans:^[8] this type of Virtue could only be attained through active fidelity to liberty and democracy.^[9]Belief in a living god and a higher moral code, he said, were “constant reminders of justice” and thus essential to a republican society.^[10]

 

Revolutionary impact

 

Robespierre used the religious issue to publicly denounce the motives of many radicals not in his camp, and it led, directly or indirectly, to the executions of Revolutionary de-Christianizers like Hébert, Momoro, and Anacharsis Cloots.^[11] The establishment of the Cult of the Supreme Being represented the beginning of the reversal of the wholesale de-Christianization process that had been looked upon previously with official favor.^[12] Simultaneously it … READ ENTIRETY (Cult of the Supreme Being; By Jeff Franklin; CultBusters Galactica Origin Page [Yeah I know crazy looking website, but the article is good writing])

 

I am driving home the point there was a difference between American deism and the atheistic naturalism of French deism is this: A huge majority of Founding Father deists considered themselves Christians. So even though these Christian Deists in varying degrees were not agreeable to the Word of God demonstrating the power of God, the Founding Fathers believed that Christian Morality must be the foundation for what can be good in the rule of law. Check out the Signers Page of the U.S. Constitution:

 

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

 

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

 

… (Followed by the signatures of the representative of the thirteen original states formally loosely aligned under the Articles of Confederation – Bold emphasis mine)

 

Does anyone wonder why the Founding Fathers use the words “year of our Lord” if they intended Christianity to have no effect in the rule of law as administered by the three Branches of the U.S. government? It doesn’t sound like an ambitious plan to separate Christianity from influencing the Federal government, right?

 

END OF PART ONE

 

JRH 3/18/14

Please Support NCCR

Wilheru Criticizes Standing Up to Militant Atheists

 

John R. Houk

© February 1, 2012

 

I blog at more place than my primary blog here at SlantRight.com. I was checking for comment at my Word Press blog known as the NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR). Below is the comment to the post “Stand Up to Militant Atheists in Public Society” (SlantRight.com version). You can read the comment which is followed by my response.

_________________________

Wilheru Comment

January 31, 2012 at 10:10 AM

 

This doesn’t make atheists angry, it makes us laugh. It makes us laugh because, frankly, you are misrepresenting atheism. How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.

Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system. It does not forbid religion to influence the government, nor should it. What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.

You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.

I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.” I’ve read much about them, yet I recall nothing that would support that. Must be faulty memory.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wilheru says, “How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.”

 

That is the same ploy ignorant polytheistic Romans propagandized against Christianity until Jesus won the hearts and minds of Roman leadership. The bread as the body of Christ and the wine as the blood of Christ is a spiritual transformation of the inner man aka the human spirit from darkness to a new creation in Christ Jesus. The only argument within Christianity is if this spiritual transformation in the Communion/Eucharist is an actual outer manifestation or if it is an outer symbolic manifestation of a spiritual reality. But atheists cannot comprehend the spiritual because their spiritual eyes have been dulled and blinded to spiritual realities. Go figure.

 

Wilheru says, “Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system.”

 

WHERE does the Constitution FORBID the use of government funds – e.g. taxpayers’ money – to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system? Perhaps you are thinking of the First Amendment.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

I read absolutely NOTHING that forbids the use of government funds in promoting a religious belief system. Also keep in mind the word “religion” is a reference to Christianity in particular to the Founding Fathers. The big irony here is that the astute Leftist and atheist apology to the Founding Fathers were Christians is they were in fact Deists.

 

The apologists fail to tell the uninformed Deism greatly differed in America than the Deism in Europe. So what is a common definition for Deism?

 

Noun

 

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

 

2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. (Dictionary.com)

 

Deism does NOT deny the existence of God! Below is one of the best explanations I have read on the differences between American Deism and European Deism:

 

1. The Age of Reason was an English affair and should be severed from The Enlightenment, which was a later French affair, occurring at a different time with very differing results. The Age of Reason sought to reform religion, the secular Enlightenment sought to destroy it in total. That is what clearly differentiated the American Revolution from the blood-letting and violent French Revolution.

 

2. That preferred “deism” as defined today was that of the atheistic French Revolution, which set the stage for Humanism, Marxisn (sic), and endless ‘isms.’ The American was based on a Calvinist’ Protestant culture/ethics tempered and moderated by the philosophy of John Locke, a Unitarian. It was based on Freemasonry, which operated as an enlightened form of general monotheism uniting the many diverse religious sects of the American Colonies.

 

3. The idea was never to strip religion from the public sphere, but to preserve individual liberty. See On Separation of Religion and State. To further quote Jefferson to put this in context, I consider religion a supplement of law in the government of man. Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Foley 1900 (#7242).

 

4. That the Founders of America were not “deists” as defined Voltaire, Rousseau, and the French Revolution and the French Enlightenment. The Deism of the French Revolution would be the ‘Watchmaker” god of Voltaire that went away after creation and had no further interaction with the world. This was part of the French humanist/atheist effort to de-Christianize French society and substitute Eastern mysticism and Greek/pagan philosophy. See the Cult of Reason and Robespierre.

 

5. That the American Founders never called themselves “Deists” and Jefferson and Adams considered themselves Unitarians and said so. They are better defined as Unitarians because they believed God was active in the world, divine punishment for evil, and an afterlife. See Existence of Deity/God by Thomas Jefferson (Exploring Deism Its Origins and History; by Lewis Loflin; Sullivan-County.com)

 

In context of these thoughts American Deists considered themselves Christians and European Deists were anti-Christian believers of limited religion as defined by a secularist and humanist thought. I would argue that more of our Founding Fathers were more Christian than Deist because of the expectation of a supernatural act of God in their prayers in winning the Revolutionary War; however that is not really the point. The point is the Founding Fathers had a Christian world view which included the practice of Christian Morality and Christian Values. The Founding Fathers’ writings in private and public demonstrate that Christianity and Reason are the foundation of their thoughts on the rule of law, i.e. the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Ergo it does not take a rocket scientist to comprehend that Christianity is the thought behind the First Amendment’s usage of the word “religion”. Since Christianity is meant by the word “religion” it should shed some light of the actual Founding Father meaning of the First Amendment religious clause:

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

 

Congress cannot make a law to establish a Christian Church Denomination as the State Church AND Congress cannot interfere with the free exercise of Christianity. Government had NO PROBLEM with this until some Leftist found an ally in the Supreme Court to interpret the religious clause in the First Amendment differently than originally intended. The result was a 20^th/21^st century reevaluation of the term Separation of Church and State which is NO WHERE found in the U.S. Constitution. Hence the Judicial Branch embarked on lawmaking that Congress was expressly prohibited to exercise. AND the Judicial Branch usurped the Constitutional purpose of Congress to enact law by creating law extra-constitutionally.

 

In saying all this I thereby refute you Wilheru that the Constitution prohibits the use of taxpayer money in the promotion of religion; however I agree the First Amendment says the government cannot use taxpayer money to discriminate against religion and Christianity in particular.

 

Wilheru says, “What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.”

 

I half-way agree with you on this Wilheru. Government does not have the right to forbid abortion based on the New Testament (Hint: the Old and New Testament both forbid infanticide and some Christian Books considered pseudepigrapha [Barnabas 19:5; Apocalypse of Peter 25]  now but as part of the New Testament by the Early Church Fathers also wrote against baby killing which is what happens when one murders an unborn baby). However, since the Founding Fathers visualized Christian Morality and Christian values as important to the rule of law (yes along with the Greek and Roman classics), I believe it is a good guess they felt a human life was a Christian life. That human life would be entitled legal protection.

 

Wilheru says, “You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.”

 

Actually the Founding Fathers’ consideration of Christian religion had more to do with religious freedom among the traditions of Christian Denominations. Enforced religious freedom did mean taking religious violence off the table; however European wars of religion had more to do with suzerainty of Princes than religious freedom. Protestant Princes that supported Lutheranism and/or Zwingli were Princes that opened themselves up to be invaded with the sanction of the Catholic Church by Catholic Princes to acquire territory. Europeans that fled Europe for religious freedom to the American colonies did so to escape persecution from nation State Churches and not because of foreign invasion.

 

Wilheru says, “I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.” I’ve read much about them, yet I recall nothing that would support that. Must be faulty memory.” (Bold Emphasis Mine)

 

George Washington

 

“I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.”  June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.

 

Thomas Jefferson

 

“God who gave us life gave us liberty.  And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?  Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”  1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.

 

“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.  I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;  sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…”  April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin.

 

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

 

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus….I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

 

James Madison (Known as the Father of the Constitution)

 

“Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.” June 20, 1785

 

“It is not the talking but the walking and working person that is the true Christian.”  In a manuscript on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison makes this statement.

 

“We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations.” March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address

 

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

 

There are more quotes – Check it out!

 

Yes Wilheru, it must be a faulty memory!

 

JRH 2/1/12

America’s Foundation is Christian, Yes Sir

John R. Houk

© November 1, 2010

 

When you hear or read a Left Wing pundit or a MSM pundit tell you that America’s political Right is revising America’s history to proclaim a Christian foundation, KNOW that America does indeed have a Christian Foundation. When you are told that America’s Founding Fathers were not Christian but rather Deists, KNOW that it is the Left revising history by warping the truth.

 

You see it is true most of the Founding Fathers may have been described as a Deist. Yet the Deists in America were quite different from the Deists in Europe. Nearly all of the Founding Fathers – both traditional Christians and Deists – believed in the Truth of the Holy Bible. Indeed a more apt description of American Deists is the appellation of Christian Deists. Christian Deists differed from Christians in one doctrinal element. Christian Deists denied the occurrence of supernatural miracles could have scientifically occurred. Perhaps some Christian Deists believed in miracles but denied that supernatural acts occurred in the present. The one doctrinal element all Christians and Christian Deists agreed upon was the efficacy of Christian Morality as the standard bearer that makes a person good and thus makes a nation good.

 

Examine this essay from Marcello Pera and discover the true nature of America’s Foundation as intended by America’s Founding Fathers.

 

JRH 11/1/10