Corazon's Corner

I've Moved

2009-03-13T10:49:00.001-07:00

Hello everyone! I am no longer using this site as my personal blog. Instead please see my new blog at:

http://hartbrad.blogspot.com

Thanks and see you there!!!

Book Review: The Making of a Catholic President

2009-02-27T11:10:00.000-08:00

Shaun Casey's new book, The Making of a Catholic President: Kennedy v. Nixon 1960, examines how religion -- in this particular case, Catholicism -- became the predominant issue in the presidential election of 1960. In addition, Casey explores how both Nixon and Kennedy used the "religion question" to their benefit, and how a plethora of prominent religious figures took to the stage of national politics, in an effort to "protect" the American democratic process.

From the beginning, Casey attempts to resurrect the anti-Catholic sentiment that permeated American politics during the early part of the 20th century. By invoking the "Ghost" of Al Smith, Casey effectively recreates the tumultuous political environment that Kennedy was to face head-on during his bid for the White House. With Kennedy emerging as a front-runner to the presidency, Protestant organizations, leaders, and media outlets embarked on a collaboration to shed light on the perceived "dangers" of a Catholic at the head of a democratically elected government. As Casey states:

Two substantive considerations were feeding their fears. First, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church was at variance with American conceptions of religious liberty and of church-state relations. Might a Catholic president be used by a politically powerful church? Second, there were policy issues on which there was a Catholic position, and a Catholic president might steer national policy in those directions (55).

As debates over issues like birth control, funding for private schools, and a possible American ambassador to the Vatican began to rise, so did the fears of Protestants, who were quick to remind the American populace of past papal declarations (specifically those of Leo XIII), which had "decried the separation of church and state as a shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism" and "called for Catholics to penetrate wherever possible into the administrations of their countries' civil affairs" (138). As a result, the efforts of organizations like Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State (POAU), ensured that the anti-Catholic sentiment that had led to the demise of Al Smith's political ambitions was again positioned to strike a fatal blow at Kennedy's run for the White House.

Despite the obvious hostility to a Catholic president, Casey points out that the Kennedy camp made a concerted effort to reach out to Protestants, in the hopes of gaining understanding and support. Casey writes:

Kennedy displayed a nimble and sophisticated grasp of the anti-Catholic forces he faced. The emerging strategy contained many elements that had served him well and would be sorely tested in the general election. Kennedy showed a willingness to admit his vulnerability regarding his Catholicism, to reach out to anti-Catholic Protestants...and to learn more about them. The listening sessions produced some direct public dividends, but they also gave the campaign insights into just how serious they had to take the threat (79).

On the flip side, the Nixon camp faced its own share of problems on the religion issue. To take advantage of the anti-Catholic sentiment by attacking Kennedy's faith out in the open would have proven fatal, but to ignore it entirely would be foolish. As a result, Nixon instead chose to work covertly with prominent Protestant leaders, in an effort to use their positions and status to attack Kennedy's Catholicism. Casey points out that Nixon relied heavily on the efforts of former Missouri congressman Orlando Armstrong, who "outlined a series of steps that the campaign could take in order to exploit Kennedy's Catholicism" (102). Paramount to his plan was to enlist the involvement of notable Protestant leaders and organizations like Billy Graham, Gerald Kennedy, Norman Vincent Peale, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Masons, and the POAU. By gaining their support, Nixon was able to leave the "dirty work" of attacking Kennedy's religion to Protestant leaders, who were more than willing to go to battle against a Catholic candidate.

One particular example used by Casey to illustrate the powerful impact of religion on the presidential race was the August, 1960 meeting of Protestant ministers at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D. C. It was here that several prominent religious leaders met to "put a public face on Protestant opposition to Kennedy's candidacy" (123). However, as Casey points out, the meeting (which had been organized primarily by Billy Graham and Norman Vincent Peale) turned out to be a public relation's nightmare for Nixon, who, despite having no official ties to the meeting or the Protestant leadership, was forced to disavow the meeting's pronouncements. Instead of shedding light on the "religion issue" as being a "a real and vital issue that must be handled in the spirit of truth, tolerance and fairness," as Peale had hoped, the meeting portrayed the Protestant opposition to Kennedy as a "bigoted" demonstration of ecclesiastical arrogance (143-144). For Casey, this was a "defining moment" in the final weeks of the election.

It was these last minute mistakes that allowed Kennedy to capitalize of the religion issue. In his final chapters, Casey outlines how the Kennedy campaign turned the issue in their favor by suggesting that the Protestant opposition was what the American people really needed to fear. Casey writes:

Here, Kennedy took the separation of church and state, the most powerful tool being used against him by Protestants, and turned it in his favor. He affirmed it categorically and proceeded to show how his detractors were in fact violating this principle in their attacks on him. He stated that he believed in a country that was not officially Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish. No public official should request or accept instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source. No religious body should seek to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the populace or public officials. Religious liberty should be so inviolable that an act against one church should be treated as an act against all (165-166).

By reversing the religion argument against his political opponents, Kennedy was able to successfully portray the pro-Nixon Protestant leadership as being guilty of the very same charges they had leveled against his campaign, and in the waning hours of the election, this provided all the momentum that Kennedy would need to emerge victorious.

In a nation where politics are literally saturated with religious overtones, Shaun Casey's The Making of a Catholic President serves as a poignant reminder of how the "religion question" can be better served when politicians seek understanding rather than public support from the ecclesiastical community. As Casey states in his conclusion:

Kennedy was not satisfied to accept that Protestant leaders were mostly against him. He and his brother Robert took the time to try and find out why this was the case. They did not seek formal endorsements from Protestant leaders; instead, they sought understanding. It would be a good thing for the U.S. polity if people seeking public office spent less time pandering for public support from religious leaders and more time listening to religious leaders talk about the concerns and aspirations of their organizations' members. If the United States is to make any progress in transcending the current political gridlock, conducting civil discourse across religious divides will be critical to that progress (204).

Don't Forget Trenton!

2008-12-25T10:06:00.001-08:00

Merry Christmas everyone! As you enjoy the festivities, keep in mind that today also carries a special American tribute that should not go forgotten.

232 years ago on this date George Washington and the Continental Army made their daring advance on Trenton to attack the Hessian soldiers encamped at the city. The move was risky to say the least. Trenton was defended by 1,500 Hessian mercenaries, who were expecting to pass through a relatively calm winter encampment at the city. Washington, however, saw an opportunity to gain a moral victory (moral because winning Trenton was not a major tactical victory) for his army. After all, this was the same army that had been thoroughly routed by the British at New York, where they were forced to flee on a number of occasions. As a result, the Continental Army was in extreme disarray and Washington himself was being questioned by the delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. In fact, some even suggested that the General should be replaced for his poor performance at New York.

It was under these tough circumstances that Thomas Paine wrote the words to his epic pamphlet, The Crisis, which was written just two days before the planned attack on Trenton:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

With such dire circumstances all around them, Washington decided to roll the dice. An attack on Trenton would secure a for the Continental Army a legitimate moral victory, one which would help to inspire the allegiance of more colonials to the cause of independence. Despite the benefits, Washington was not unaware of the tremendous risk he was taking. In a very real sense this was an all-or-nothing gamble (It is therefore no surprise that Washington would pen a note on his desk that read, "Victory or Death").

To make a long story short, Washington and the Continental Army won an astonishing victory at Trenton, capturing over 1/3 of the entire Hessian garrison. Since the Hessians expected a quiet winter encampment, they chose to enjoy the holidays by staying up late and drinking away their Christmas Eve. As a result, the army was caught asleep, hung over, and disorganized upon Washington's arrival. Here is a clip from the movie The Crossing, which captures the feel of that Christmas morning:

The Army then goes on to rout the Hessians at Trenton. In the process, only 2 continental soldiers lost their lives. In addition, only five were wounded (including James Monroe, who eventually became our 5th president).

So, Merry Continental Army Kicks Hessian Butt Day/Christmas!!!

Thomas Jefferson: Creationist???

2008-12-06T09:59:00.000-08:00

At the Publick Occurrences, 2.0 blog, Jeff Pasley posts an interesting/mind boggling article on the "Creation Museum" outside of Cincinnati. The "Creation Museum" was established in 2007, mostly through the efforts of the controversial group Answers in Genesis, and the highly criticized Christian speaker/"scientist," Ken Ham. The museum's mission is to to try and bridge the gap (or destroy the gap) between science and the Bible, thus proving that the infallibility of the Bible reigns supreme over modern scientific theory. As the Creation Museum's website states:

The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings.

In addition to its emphasis on dinosaurs roaming the earth only a few thousand years ago and Noah riding the waves in his arc during a global flood, the Creation Museum "paves the way for greater understanding of the tenants of creation and redemption" by refuting the "traditional" understanding of science (it is worth noting here that a recent poll by the American Association for the Advancement of Science revealed that 99.85% of the material presented in the Creation Museum is refuted by the scientific community).

So what does this have to do with the theme of our blog? Well, as Jeff Pasley points out in his article mentioned above, none other than THOMAS JEFFERSON has been credited as being one of the museum's "intellectual progenitors." Pasley writes:

The Creation [Museum] is an expensive, high-tech send-up of modern scientific thought about natural history, devoted to presenting the text of the Bible as literal scientific fact and instilling visitors with a fear and loathing of the post-Enlightenment world. Yet guess who gets named by the article’s author (Joseph Clarke) as one of the museum’s intellectual progenitors? Poor Thomas Jefferson, whose liberal religious views and avid interest in Enlightenment science were constantly ridiculed and condemned during his life-time. He clipped all the miracles and supernatural references out of the Gospels for nothing, apparently.

In this post, Pasley mentions an article by Joseph Clarke, who defends the Creation Museum's "scholarly" pursuit of scientific truth. In addition, Clarke pathetically attempts to include Thomas Jefferson as a supporter of the Creation Museum's mission. He writes:

But while the Creation Museum undoubtedly reflects these recent trends, moralistic distrust of city life has a rich history in America. When, in 1925, John Scopes was tried for teaching Darwinism to a high school science class in violation of Tennessee law, the case against him was argued by William Jennings Bryan, a luminary of the young fundamentalist movement and a staunch agrarian. In Bryan’s view, urban industrial capitalism was inextricable from the social Darwinist credo of survival of the fittest and the cultural ills to which it gave rise. Before Bryan, Thomas Jefferson argued against Alexander Hamilton that the cold rationality of economic development would lead to social waywardness unless held in check by a thriving agrarian culture: “Corruption of morals…is the mark set upon those, who, not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on casualties and caprice of customers.” Jefferson’s proposed design for the Great Seal of the United States depicted the nation of Israel journeying through the wilderness in search of the Promised Land

Yes, even the religious skeptic, Thomas Jefferson, who not only doubted the legitimacy of Christianity but also removed a number of stories from his own Bible is now loosely linked with creationism! This is a bizarre attempt at linking modern creationism with America's founding history, especially when we consider Jefferson's own words on the "infallibility" of the Bible:

The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers...Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages.

Bon Voyage Britain!

2008-11-26T13:45:00.001-08:00

On this day in 1783, the final remnants of British troops withdrew from New York, a city and harbor they had controlled for over seven years. The withdrawal came three months after the finalization of the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the war between Britain and her former American colonies.

After the final British soldiers left the harbor, General George Washington made his triumphant entry back into the city that he had failed to defend seven years earlier. The loss of New York was arguably the toughest pill to swallow for the General. Washington had always taken the loss of New York personally and had suggested leading an attack on the city numerous times over the next seven years -- a prospect that his aids and associates back in the Continental Congress did not share.

The History Channel website has the following comments on the importance of New York and what the withdrawal of British troops meant to the new infant nation:

Four months after New York was returned to the victorious Patriots, the city was declared to be the capital of the United States. In 1789, it was the site of Washington's inauguration as the first U.S. president and remained the nation's capital until 1790, when Philadelphia became the second capital of the United States under the U.S. Constitution.

New Yorkers shaped the history of two new nations. The British evacuated their New York Loyalists to remaining British territories, mainly in Canada. These families had been dispossessed of their land and belongings by the victorious Patriots because of their continued support of the British king and were able to regain some financial independence through lands granted to them by the British in western Quebec (now Ontario) and Nova Scotia. Their arrival in Canada permanently shifted the demographics of what had been French-speaking New France until 1763 into an English-speaking colony, and later nation, with the exception of a French-speaking and culturally French area in eastern Canada that is now Quebec.

In 1784, one year after their arrival, the new Loyalist population spurred the creation of New Brunswick in the previously unpopulated (by Europeans, at least) lands west of the Bay of Fundy in what had been Nova Scotia. In 1785, the Loyalists yet again made their mark on Canadian history when their combined settlements at Parrtown and Carleton of approximately 14,000 people became British North America’s first incorporated city under the name City of Saint John. The division between the Anglophile and Francophile sections was ultimately recognized by creating the English-dominant province of Ontario, west of Quebec, in 1867.

Yes, New York has always been the "City that never sleeps."

Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

2008-11-26T11:56:00.001-08:00

Since the blog is on a holiday kick, I thought that this might be an appropriate way to continue the theme. After all, I don't want to be the one that breaks with tradition!

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 -- October 14, 1789 to be exact -- has been lauded by Christian nation sympathizers for decades as proof positive that America's first Commander-in-Chief was a devout believer in Jesus Christ. And while I am in 100% agreement with their assertion that Washington was a devout man of faith and prayer, I also recognize that the historical record -- as it applies to Washington's religion -- is far from concrete in labeling him a devout Christian.

Let us look at the Thanksgiving document itself for additional evidence on Washington's faith. First off, most anti-Christian nation advocates routinely point out the fact that the actual author of the proclamation was not President Washington, but William Jackson, the President's personal secretary. And while it is true that Washington did not himself pen the proclamation, it is reasonable to assume that he read and gave consent to the document's contents, thus the actual authorship of the piece has little to no relevance. What is relevant, however, is the wordage that was chosen to pay homage to God. Does Washington actually invoke the blessings of the Christian God as so many Christian nation apologists insist? Below is a copy of Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation:

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

As noted in bold above, Washington's proclamation contains five specific references to deity. Contrary to what many anti-Christian nation advocates claim, the document is clearly religious in its content and purpose. However, does it support the Christian nation crowd's assertion that Washington was a devout Christian? I would argue that it does not. With that said, it is more than clear from this document and others that Washington was a man of faith. What TYPE of faith is the real question we must endeavor to answer.

As I have pointed out in a previous post, the language used by Washington when speaking of deity can be seen as a good barometer of the General's personal religious creed. In his book, Sacred Fire author Peter Lillback successfully illustrates the fact that Washington was indeed a man of prayer and faith. However, his work falls short of conclusively proving that Washington was a devout Christian. In Appendix 3 of his book, Lillback lists all of Washington's public papers that mention God. As Lillback states at the beginning of his appendix:

One of the elements of the Christian faith that was suspect, and eventually abandoned by Deists, was the practice of prayer. This was logical since there was little purpose in speaking to a Deity who on principle had abandoned all contact and communication with his creation.

Given this understanding, Washington's lifetime practice of prayer, illustrated by these more than one hundred written prayers, is an undeniable refutation of his alleged Deism...The sheer magnitude of the umber of prayers, coupled with the expansive topics included in his prayers, give substantial credence to the universal testimony of Washington's contemporaries of his practice of corporate and private prayer.

This underscores how misplaced contemporary scholars have been in claiming that Washington was a man of lukewarm religious faith. (761).

With this in mind, I decided that it would be worthwhile to dissect the various "written prayers" that Peter Lillback sites in his book. After all, the language that Washington used in these prayers should be a valuable tool in determining Washington's actual beliefs.

Here are the actual phrases that Washington used in his "written prayers" to describe divinity, along with the number of times they were used:

"Providence" - 26 times
"Heaven" -25 times
"God" - 16 times
"Almighty God" - 8 times
"Lord" - 5 times
"Almighty" - 5 times
"Author of all Blessings" - 3 times
"Author of the Universe" - 3 times
"God of Armies" - 3 times
"Giver of Victory" - 3 times
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - 2 times
"Divine Protector" - 2 times
"Ruler of Nations" - 2 times
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - 2 times
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - 2 times
"Author of Nations" - 1 time
"Divine Being" - 1 time
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - 1 time
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - 1 time
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - 1 time
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - 1 time
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - 1 time
"Allwise Providence" - 1 time
"Infinite Wisdom" - 1 time
"Eye of Omnipotence" - 1 time
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - 1 time
"Omnipotent being" - 1 time
"Great Spirit" - 1 time
"Glorious being" - 1 time
"Supreme being" - 1 time
"Almighty being" - 1 time
"Creator" - 1 time
"Jesus Christ" - 0
"Salvation" - 0
"Messiah" - 0
"Savior" - 0
"Redeemer" - 0
"Jehovah" - 0

And the same can be said of Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation. Instead of using words like "Messiah," "Savior," "Jesus Christ," etc., Washington chooses neutral phrases like, "Great Lord and Ruler of Nations," "Almighty God," and "great and glorious Being." As is evidenced from Lillback's work, Washington made it a habit to avoid using the language of a typical devout Christian of his day, which would logically seem to suggest that Washington was not the orthodox Christian so many wish him to be.

Joseph Galloway on the Supremacy of British Authority

2008-11-03T12:51:00.001-08:00

Of the many justifications for going to war, perhaps nothing proved more influential to the American colonies than religion. A countless number of sermons point to the fact that religion played a powerful role in convincing the colonies that war with their "Mother Land" was justifiable and sanctioned by God.

This religious "fever" for war, though thoroughly convincing to the majority, did not convince everyone. Case in point: Joseph Galloway.

Galloway, who was a representative of Pennsylvania to the First Continental Congress, was a passionate voice in favor of American reconciliation with Britain, so much so that his loyalist leanings eventually led him to abandon his home in America and flee to Britain. Before his "treason," however, Galloway campaigned hard for a resolution to the crisis. To add credence to his argument, Galloway, like his pro-independence opponents, used religion to justify his proposals. In his popular pamphlet, A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and The Colonies, Galloway offers a gloom-and-doom prophesy on the possible dangers of American independence, which include his fear of a Franco/Catholic incursion into the Americas. He writes:

Do you wish to exchange the mild and equal rule of English customs and manners and your inestimable religion, for the tyranny of a foreign yoke, and the bloody supersticions of popery? Or if you design to give up your present enjoyment of all the blessings of life, for the horrors and distresses of a civil war, and the fatal consequesnces which must ifallibly attend yourselves, and your posterity? Are you still resolved to surrender up your reason to the miserable sophistry and gargon of designing men, and to hazard all these direful misfortunes, rather than be united with your brethren and fellow subjects in Briatian? (62).

In a September, 1774 speech given to the Continental Congress, Galloway continued his pro-British argument by pointing to the "supreme authority" of the British government over their American colonies:

These advocates also assert, what we cannot deny--That the discovery of the Colonies was made under a commission granted by the supreme authority of the British State, that they have been settled under that authority. and therefore are truly the property of that State. Parliamentary jurisdiction has been constantly exercised over them from their first settlement; its executive authority has ever run through all their inferior political systems: the Colonists have ever sworn allegiance to the British State, and have been considered, both by the State and by themselves, as subjects of the British Government. Protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties; the one cannot exist without the other. The Colonies cannot claim the protection of Britain upon any principle of reason or law, while they deny its supreme authority. Upon this ground the authority of Parliament stands too firm to be shaken by any arguments whatever; and therefore to deny that authority, and at the same time to declare their incapacity to be represented, amounts to a full and explicit declaration of independence.

Galloway's insistence on British authority and law is interesting to consider when juxtaposed with the opening verses of Romans Chapter 13 of the Bible:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

And to those that questioned Galloway's loyalist reasoning by appealing to the "laws of nature" and "nature's God" to justify their treason, Galloway writes:

We have seen all the American writers on the subject, adopting untenable principles and thence rearing the most wild and chimerical superstructures. Some of them have fixed on, as a source from whence to draw American Right, “the laws of God and nature,” the common rights of mankind and “American charters.” Others finding that the claims of the colonies could not be supported upon these pillars, have racked their inventions to find distinctions which never existed, nor can exist…And after all of them have been fully considered, even the authors themselves, finding that they have conveyed no satisfactory idea to the intelligent of mind, either of the extent of parliamentary authority, or of the rights of America, have exploded them, and taken new ground, which will be found equally indefensible.

For Joseph Galloway and many others, the rampant talk of revolution and independence was not only a frightening upheaval of the status quo, but also a direct violation to God's laws. Great Britain had sovereign and divine authority over its American colonies, and any argument to the contrary was both treason and blasphemy.

Comedy Break

2008-10-29T10:32:00.001-07:00

This is funny! Enjoy:

Benjamin Franklin: A Jesus-centered Deist

2008-10-25T16:19:00.001-07:00

In light of the recent discussion on the religious creed of Benjamin Franklin over at American Creation, and the recent book reviews by guest blogger Robert Cornwall, I thought I would add my 10 cents to the discussion by creating this post. As Jon Rowe has already mentioned in his previous post, Franklin, for the most part, considered himself to be a "rational Christian." Yet, throughout the course of his life, Franklin was repeatedly labeled as a "heretic," "Deist," "agnostic," etc.

Certainly the impact of Enlightenment philosophy led Franklin down diverse paths in the development of his own personal religions creed. Yet the impact of Enlightenment philosophy only tells part of the story when it comes to Franklin’s religious beliefs. After all, Franklin was raised in a very religious family, where his father, Josiah, – upon immigrating to the British colonies in America – rose to the status of a “watchman” within the Puritan community of Boston, where he enforced the strict rules of morality and piety of the colony. Josiah even planned to have Benjamin enrolled in the Boston Latin School, where he hoped his son would begin his preparations for the Congregationalist ministry (Founding Faith, 53). Benjamin, however, had different plans. As Franklin biographer Walter Isaacson points out, “Franklin’s ‘skeptical, punkish and irreverent’ behavior made him a terrible fit for the clergy” (Benjamin Franklin, 19). Later during his teenage years – while pretending to be a widowed woman named Silence Dogood – Franklin would expound upon his “rebellious” sentiments towards religion. In Silence Dogood #9, Franklin states:

'Tis not inconsistent with Charity to distrust a Religious Man in Power, tho' he may be a good Man; he has many Temptations "to propagate publick Destruction for Personal Advantages and Security": And if his Natural Temper be covetous, and his Actions often contradict his pious Discourse, we may with great Reason conclude, that he has some other Design in his Religion besides barely getting to Heaven. But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who <>A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv'd, and the People of being deceiv'd by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance. And it is a sad Observation, that when the People too late see their Error, yet the Clergy still persist in their Encomiums on the Hypocrite; and when he happens to die for the Good of his Country, without leaving behind him the Memory of one good Action, he shall be sure to have his Funeral Sermon stuff'd with Pious Expressions which he dropt at such a Time, and at such a Place, and on such an Occasion; than which nothing can be more prejudicial to the Interest of Religion, nor indeed to the Memory of the Person deceas'd. The Reason of this Blindness in the Clergy is, because they are honourably supported (as they ought to be) by their People, and see nor feel nothing of the Oppression which is obvious and burdensome to every one else.

Upon revealing the true identity of Silence Dogood, Franklin was quickly branded a dangerous and rebellious heretic. Those within Boston’s religious community – including Franklin’s friend, Cotton Mather – distanced themselves from the young man who dared to question the religious status quo. As Franklin put it, “My indiscreet Disputations about Religion began to make me pointed at with Horror by good People, as an Infidel or Atheist” (Franklin, Autobiography, 71).
After moving away from Boston and establishing himself as a successful printer in Philadelphia, Franklin continued his attack on pious religious leaders, who used their faith to control their flock. As Franklin states in one edition of his popular series, Poor Richard’s Almanac, “Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful…Nor is duty beneficial because it is commanded, but it is commanded because it is beneficial.” In another edition Franklin wrote, "Serving God is doing good to man, but praying is thought easier service and therefore is more generally chosen."

With such an early assortment of controversial statements on religion, it is understandable why some people have considered Franklin to be an agnostic or even possibly an atheist. Such a conclusion, however, obscures much of Franklin’s passionate belief in virtue and divinity. For example, though Franklin questioned the authority of the pious ministers of his day, he never doubted the importance of living a virtuous life. Instead of devoting himself to a particular brand of orthodoxy, Franklin chose to invoke the “laws of nature” – a typical Deist principle of his day – which became the backbone of his views on divinity. Franklin’s Thirteen Virtues are a perfect example of how Franklin merged Christian principles with his Deistic philosophy:

1. Temperance. Eat not to Dulness. Drink not to Elevation.
2. Silence. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling Conversation.
3. Order. Let all your Things have their Places. Let each Part of your Business have its Time.
4. Resolution. Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality. Make no Expense but to do good to others or yourself: i.e. Waste nothing.
6. Industry. Lose no Time. Be always employ'd in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary Actions.
7. Sincerity. Use no hurtful Deceit. Think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. Justice. Wrong none, by doing Injuries or omitting the Benefits that are your Duty.
9. Moderation. Avoid Extreams. Forbear resenting Injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness. Tolerate no Uncleanness in Body, Cloaths or Habitation.
11. Tranquility. Be not disturbed at Trifles, or at Accidents common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity. Rarely use Venery but for Health or Offspring; Never to Dulness, Weakness, or the Injury of your own or another's Peace or Reputation.
13. Humility. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

In addition to this personal code of conduct, Franklin sought to “amend” a number of Christian creeds and beliefs. His version of the Lord’s Prayer is an excellent example of how Franklin stripped the miracles of Christianity from his personal liturgy.

Perhaps the most telling evidence of Franklin’s personal beliefs comes from his infamous letter to Ezra Stiles in 1790. In the letter, Franklin states:

You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble [my emphasis].

Franklin's Deistic leanings are augmented when we consider the fact that he not only questioned the divinity of Jesus Christ – as evidenced by the Ezra Stiles letter – but that he also questioned the infallibility of the Bible. The fact that he also rejected the ordinances of communion and confirmation, combined with his lack of regular church attendance serve as ample evidence that Franklin was far from an orthodox Christian. Franklin’s own admission that he was “a thorough Deist” virtually ends the dispute over his religious leanings (Franklin, Autobiography, 114).

Such an admission, however, does not suggest that Franklin was a pure Deist. After all, Franklin did believe that God regularly intervened in the affairs of mankind (Holmes, Founding Faith, 55). Franklin also maintained an appreciation for the teachings of Christianity, though he detested how it was being practiced:

I wish it were more productive of good works than I have generally seen. I mean real good works; works of kindness, charity, mercy, and public spirit; not holiday-keeping, sermon-reading or hearing; performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers...[Jesus] preferred the doers of the word, to the mere hearers...Serving God is doing good to man...Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means" (Quoted in Waldman, Founding Faith, 20-21).

So where should we classify Franklin? From the evidence noted, it is clear that he does not fall anywhere near orthodox Christianity, yet he also falls short of embracing pure Deism. Clearly Franklin is closer to Deism than he is Christianity, so it would be fair to categorize his religious beliefs as being those of a "liberal Deist," or as I choose to define him, a "Jesus-centered Deist."

Is "Spreading the Wealth" anti-Capitalist???

2008-10-25T11:30:00.000-07:00

In one of his recent posts, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan points out an interesting quote from Adam Smith -- the so-called "father" of capitalism. The quote comes from Smith's extremely popular and influential book, Wealth of Nations. Smith states:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor...The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess...It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. [my emphasis].

As everyone that follows politics knows, Barack Obama's "spreading the wealth" comment has caused conservatives to go on the attack, labeling Obama as a socialist. Keeping Adam Smith's comment above in mind, could we argue that Obama is actually MORE of a capitalist "purist" than McCain?

In a letter to Benjamin Vaughn, Benjamin Franklin pointed out his distrust of the elite having too much money and power in their hands. Using an analogy to prove his point, Franklin writes:

When by virtue of the first Laws Part of the Society accumulated Wealth and grew Powerful, they enacted others more severe, and would protect their Property at the Expence of Humanity. This was abusing their Powers, and commencing a Tyranny. If a Savage before he enter’d into Society had been told, Your Neighbour by this Means may become Owner of 100 Deer, but if your Brother, or your Son, or yourself, having no Deer of your own, and being hungry should kill one of them, an infamous Death must be the Consequence; he would probably have prefer’d his Liberty, and his common Right of killing any Deer, to all the Advantages of Society that might be propos’d to him.

So, is true capitalism that which prevents any form of redistributing wealth? Or can capitalism encourage AT LEAST some equality between the wealthy and the middle class?

American Lion Hot off the Presses

2008-10-23T10:14:00.001-07:00

Jon Meacham, Editor for Newsweek Magazine and author of the book, American Gospel has officially finished his third work of history. In his newest book, Meacham tackles the presidency of the ever-controversial Andrew Jackson, whom Meachan describes as "still the most polarizing President in American history." Meacham's book, American Lion, is scheduled to be released to the public on November 11 and is expected to debut as an immediate success. Here are a few comments on Meacham's book from Random House Publishing:

Andrew Jackson, his intimate circle of friends, and his tumultuous times are at the heart of this remarkable book about the man who rose from nothing to create the modern presidency. Beloved and hated, venerated and reviled, Andrew Jackson was an orphan who fought his way to the pinnacle of power, bending the nation to his will in the cause of democracy. Jackson’s election in 1828 ushered in a new and lasting era in which the people, not distant elites, were the guiding force in American politics. Democracy made its stand in the Jackson years, and he gave voice to the hopes and the fears of a restless, changing nation facing challenging times at home and threats abroad. To tell the saga of Jackson’s presidency, acclaimed author Jon Meacham goes inside the Jackson White House. Drawing on newly discovered family letters and papers, he details the human drama–the family, the women, and the inner circle of advisers–that shaped Jackson’s private world through years of storm and victory.

One of our most significant yet dimly recalled presidents, Jackson was a battle-hardened warrior, the founder of the Democratic Party, and the architect of the presidency as we know it. His story is one of violence, sex, courage, and tragedy. With his powerful persona, his evident bravery, and his mystical connection to the people, Jackson moved the White House from the periphery of government to the center of national action, articulating a vision of change that challenged entrenched interests to heed the popular will–or face his formidable wrath. The greatest of the presidents who have followed Jackson in the White House–from Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt to FDR to Truman–have found inspiration in his example, and virtue in his vision.

Jackson was the most contradictory of men. The architect of the removal of Indians from their native lands, he was warmly sentimental and risked everything to give more power to ordinary citizens. He was, in short, a lot like his country: alternately kind and vicious, brilliant and blind; and a man who fought a lifelong war to keep the republic safe–no matter what it took.

Jon Meacham in American Lion has delivered the definitive human portrait of a pivotal president who forever changed the American presidency–and America itself.

Here is a link to the book at Amazon.com

American Revolution Blog

2008-10-22T08:52:00.000-07:00

After taking a couple months off I have decided to "resurrect" the American Revolution Blog. For the past year, the American Revolution Blog has grown to be a fairly popular history blog on what is BY FAR my favorite era in all of history. The blog is not dedicated to any specific issue of the Revolution but is instead a general history of the founding era.

Anyway, I hope you will check it out. We have a lot of fun over there!

Here is the link: http://americanrevolutionblog.blogspot.com

Long Live King Washington???

2008-10-22T08:15:00.001-07:00

But the United States doesn't have a royal family...right? Well, we could have.

As the rumor states, a group of frustrated American colonists, fed up with the lack of productivity in the Continental Congress, actually considered a coup d' etat of the national government and the establishment of a monarchy, with George Washington as its king. A 1782 letter to Washington from Colonel Lewis Nichola is a perfect illustration of just how frustrated some colonists were beginning to feel with the infant American government. Colonel Nichola writes:

This war must have shewn to all, but to military men in particular the weakness of republicks, and the exertions the army has been able to make by being under a proper head...Some people have so connected the ideas of tyranny and monarchy as to find it very difficult to seperate them, it may therefore be requisite to give the head of such a constitution as I propose, some title apparently more moderate, but if all other things are once adjusted I believe strong arguments might he produced for admitting the title of king, which I conceive would be attended with some material advantage. …Republican bigots will certainly consider my opinions as heterdox, and the maintainer thereof as meriting fire and fagots, I have therefore hitherto kept them within my own breast [my emphasis].

Washington, however, despised such suggestions, dismissing them as virtual heresies. In response to Colonel Nichola's letter, Washington wrote:

I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no Man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like Nature. [my emphasis].

In his typically stern, yet gentlemanly style, Washington made it abundantly clear that he stood opposed to an American monarchy.

But what if he had embraced the idea of being King?

In a recent Newsweek web article, Kurt Soller discusses how genealogy buffs, for the past century, have been toying over the notion of a Washington monarchy and what it would have meant for America today.

Genealogists have been pondering the possibilities had President Washington been a bit more power-hungry. As early as 1908, newspapers published accounts of history buffs who worked their way through the Washington family tree using rules of succession to determine the rightful heir to the theoretical American throne. But without the Internet, branches of the Washington tree would be lost in Ohio, say, or forgotten by lineage sleuths who couldn't quite decipher a family tree made complicated because Washington himself didn't have any children.

But while brainstorming ideas for their election-themed coverage, Ancestry.com turned to their Chief Family Historian, Megan Smolenyak, for an answer to the historical mystery. Smolenyak first turned to Google where she figured out that, because kinship rules vary by country and because Washington was childless, there were four possible kings (or queens) among the nearly 8,000 descendants of Washington who are alive today.

So, who would be "King" of America today had Washington accepted such a position?

Eighty-two-year-old Paul Emery Washington of San Antonio, Texas, a relatively average American who spent his life climbing the corporate ladder of a building supply company would be your king. And what does Mr. Washington think of such a distinction? Well, the offer is flattering but not all that appealing. He states:

"I doubt if I'd be a very good king. We've done so well as a country without a king, so I think George made the best decision. He fought for eight years to do away with the monarchy, and I think he made the right decision. The idea of one individual having supreme power over all others is an antiquated idea -- to say the least."

A Message to All Muslim Haters

2008-10-20T21:31:00.001-07:00

Yep, even those damn, evil, vile, hideous, infidel, monsters known to us as MUSLIMS have fought, bled, and died for America. So, to the crowd that insists on believing that America is exclusively a CHRISTIAN NATION...GET OVER YOURSELF!!!

The following pictures show the graves of young Muslim-Americans who died in Iraq. And yes, they died for THIS COUNTRY:

Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Here are some words of wisdom (from our Founders) to chew on:

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets, will not forfeit his protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States."
~George Washington, Letter to the Swedenborgians, 1793.

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
~John Adams, Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli, June 7, 1797.

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
~Article IX, Section III of the United States Constitution.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
~James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.

So, the next time you decide to go off on some stupid, ignorant rant about how evil Muslims are keep one thing in mind: Muslim-American troops played a part in giving you that freedom...bigot!

End of the Line For McCain???

2008-10-19T17:16:00.000-07:00

For the McCain supporters out there, this is a major blow. Colin Powell is one of the most celebrated, supported and recognized American patriots in recent years. For either a Democrat or a Republican to question his integrity, credentials or love of country is beyond absurd. Simply put, Colin Powell is a brand name that is synonymous with dedication to country, etc.

For the Obama supporters out there, you are probably (and rightfully so) very happy about this endorsement. It is the equivalent of a Dwight D. Eisenhower type endorsement.

Regardless of your persuasion, I am 100% in agreement with Powell on a couple of points that he makes in the following video:

1.) The garbage attacks on Obama being a Muslim, etc. need to go away. McCain is doing himself no favors by bringing this crap up. Powell's mention of an Muslim-American soldier buried at Arlington is an excellent example of this.

2.) What has the Republican Party done to itself? Instead of being the party of the people it has become a narrowly defined party that caters WAY TOO MUCH to the religious right. And while the religious right does an excellent job on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., they COMPLETELY miss the mark on other issues. If the republicans lose in 08 I believe it could force the party to quit being so narrow in its focus, so dedicated to religious fundamentalism and so blind to the electorate.

Here is the video. Very interesting!!!

In short, an Obama victory may be good for Dems in the immediate future, but it could ultimately be good for Repubs in the long-term, assuming that they get their act together as a party and quit pandering to stupid agendas, etc.

Al least, that's my take on it, but what do I know? I'm one of those "unaffiliated" voters.

Your thoughts........

Comedy Relief from the Candidates

2008-10-17T08:48:00.001-07:00

For one night out of the year both presidential candidates take off the gloves and enjoy a little piece of comedy relief. It is a tradition that goes back 63 years. Very funny stuff! Enjoy:

Senator McCain:

Senator Obama:

It's nice to see candidates being "nice" to one another!

The Religious Paradox of George Washington

2008-10-15T09:03:00.000-07:00

Of all of the founding fathers, there is perhaps no individual that has caused more debate, argument or curiosity than George Washington. As the general of the Continental Army and the first man to head the executive branch of the American republic, Washington has become a larger-than-life figure in the pantheon of national heroes. Or as Washington biographer, Joseph Ellis put it, Washington is “the palpable reality that clothed the revolutionary rhapsodies in flesh and blood, America’s one and only indispensable character…the American Zeus, Moses and Cincinnatus all rolled into one” (Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, 121). As the “Father of our nation,” Washington’s legacy has grown to Herculean proportions. As a result, the task of sifting through the myth, legend and folklore that regularly surrounds Washington has proven to be a daunting task for every generation of historians.

There is no better example of this historical quandary, which surrounds virtually every aspect of Washington’s life, than that of his religious beliefs. For nearly two centuries, Americans have fought over Washington’s personal theological philosophy in an effort to “claim” him as their own. Whether in the form of a politician, historian, minister, etc., the religious beliefs of George Washington have been subjected to the fires of partisan debate and spiritual deliberation.

There are a number of reasons that Washington stands out from his fellow founders. First of all is the simple fact that most of the other mainstream founders -- Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, etc. -- are relatively easy to understand in terms of their religious beliefs. Washington, however, is a different story. As a man who “developed the most notorious model of self-control in all of American history,” Washington has been dubbed “the original marble man” for his desire for personal privacy and mystery (Joseph Ellis, His Excellency, 37). Even Washington’s favorite guide, Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior, a book he recited throughout his life, contain insights into Washington’s reclusive nature:

35th Let your Discourse with Men of Business be Short and Comprehensive.

73d Think before you Speak pronounce not imperfectly nor bring out your Words too hastily but orderly & distinctly.

88th Be not tedious in Discourse, make not many Digressigns, nor repeat often the Same manner of Discourse.

It therefore comes as no surprise that a man of such seclusion would prove very difficult to pinpoint on the religious spectrum.

In addition to Washington’s desire to cultivate privacy, the following factors have also made it very difficult to ascertain with any level of certainty Washington’s religious beliefs:

1.) As the most celebrated founding father, Washington has become a “holy grail” of sorts for both Christian enthusiasts and secular devotees. In essence, Washington is the Tiger Woods of founding fathers.
2.) The sheer lack of “smoking gun” evidence to support Washington’s Christian orthodoxy or devotion to deism makes any clear-cut classification of Washington into either camps look factually foolish.
3.) Current trends in American pop-culture seem to distort the historical record regarding Washington’s religious beliefs.

As a result, Washington's religious views have become an enigma or paradox of sorts for historians and theologians alike.

To pinpoint Washington on the religious spectrum, we must first eliminate deism as having any serious influence on Washington. To be considered a true deist, one must reject the belief that a supreme being intervenes in the affairs of men. Simply put, Washington does not meet this definition. In a number of his letters, Washington regularly pointed to the hand of providence as being regularly involved in the affairs of men. In a letter to Governor Trumball, Washington writes:

"Allow me to return you my sincere thanks for the kind wishes and favorable Sentiments express'd in yours of the 13th Instant. As the Cause of our common Country, calls us both to an active and dangerous Duty, I trust that Divine Providence, which wisely orders the Affairs of Men, will enable us to discharge it with Fidelity and Success" [my emphasis].

In his General Orders to the Continental Army, Washington insisted that "Next to the favour of divine providence, nothing is more essentially necessary to give this Army the victory over all its enemies, than Exactness of discipline" [my emphasis]. Other examples of Washington giving praise to providence can be found here and here.

With deism being eliminated as a possible definition for Washington's faith, we are left to ascertain to what level Washington embraced Christianity. To do this, it is important that we first define what orthodox Christianity would look like in Washington’s world. Having been born into the Anglican faith, Washington -- like every other Anglican of the 18th century -- was expected to adhere to certain creeds, which demonstrated his piety and devotion to God. Of course we cannot simply assume that Washington was a devout Anglican simply from his membership in that church because, after all, baptism was performed at infancy. This means that to resolve the "Paradox" of Washington's faith we must look at what he chose to do as an adult.

The Communion Debate
One of the first points that people look at to prove Washington's piety or the lack thereof is the practice of communion. The 39 Articles of faith of the Church of England are a perfect illustration of some of the basic beliefs that a devout Anglican was expected to embrace. When it comes to the practice of communion, the articles state the following:

Article XXV: Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Article XXIX: Of the Wicked which do not eat the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

Article XXX: Of both kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people; for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Or as John 6:53 states:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

From the very doctrine of the Anglican Church, it is clear that communion was a divinely-sanctioned practice that was required of the orthodox believer.

Now, as most enthusiasts of early American religion know, Washington's participation in communion has been a hotly debated issue. Those who argue in defense of Washington's Christian orthodoxy will regularly dismiss this issue by claiming that an individual does not need to take the Lord's Supper to be a Christian. While this may be true, let us keep in mind that AS AN ANGLICAN, Washington had been raised to revere communion as a holy institution that was required of the devout believer. In other words, to be considered ORTHODOX in belief, an individuals participation in the Lord's Supper is a good barometer.

Unfortunately for historians, there are no surviving documents from Washington to help shed light on this issue. However, there are a number of documents from Washington's contemporaries, which prove very helpful in this debate. For example, Dr. James Abercrombie, who was the assistant rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia, stated the following in regards to Washington's participation in communion:

[O]n Sacrament Sundays, Gen'l Washington, immediately after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public Worship, to sate the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President, and, as such, he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U. S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof from the public, for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never become a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the morning of Sacrament Sundays, tho', at other times, constant attending in the morning...

...That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace [my emphasis].

In another account, Bishop William White states:

In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say, that General Washington never received communion, in the churches of which I am a parochial minister.

From the noted evidence, Washington's participation in the Lord's Supper, an ordinance of great importance to the Anglican Church, is highly in doubt.

In defense of Washington, there are those who point out that Dr. James Abercrombie and Bishop William White were ardent loyalists during the American Revolution, and could have distorted the facts surrounding Washington's faith. In addition, some also suggest the possibility that Washington refused communion because of the political leanings of these ministers, or possibly because he did not feel worthy. As 1 Corinthians 11:29 states:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

In the end, the communion issue is a difficult one to pinpoint with any degree of certainty. Though the accounts of Washington's avoidance to take communion are quite strong, we will never be able to ascertain Washington's state of mind regarding this ordinance. Perhaps he avoided communion because he thought of it as a silly practice, or perhaps he felt personally unworthy to partake of Christ's flesh and blood. Whatever the reason, the fact that Washington purposely avoided communion is a significant component in determining his faith.

Washington and Prayer
Another issue that regularly comes up when discussing the faith of George Washington is prayer. Virtually every American has seen the infamous painting of the General on his knees in the snow of Valley Forge, humbly beseeching the God of heaven for his protection and blessings. As I have argued in a former post, the Prayer at Valley Forge is almost certainly as mythical a story as that of the Cherry Tree or the Silver Dollar. What is not disputed, however, is the fact that Washington was very much a man of devout prayer. In his 1200 page biography of Washington, author Peter Lillback provides a large collection of what he calls Washington's "written prayers." This collection in and of itself serves to prove the fact that Washington prayed on a regular basis. As a result, those who dispute Washington's devotion to prayer find their argument on very shaky ground. On the other hand, these "written prayers" still raise serious doubts about Washington being an orthodox believer. For example, here are the actual phrases that Washington used in his "written prayers" to describe divinity, along with the number of times they were used:

"Providence" - 26 times
"Heaven" -25 times
"God" - 16 times
"Almighty God" - 8 times
"Lord" - 5 times
"Almighty" - 5 times
"Author of all Blessings" - 3 times
"Author of the Universe" - 3 times
"God of Armies" - 3 times
"Giver of Victory" - 3 times
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - 2 times
"Divine Protector" - 2 times
"Ruler of Nations" - 2 times
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - 2 times
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - 2 times
"Author of Nations" - 1 time
"Divine Being" - 1 time
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - 1 time
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - 1 time
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - 1 time
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - 1 time
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - 1 time
"Allwise Providence" - 1 time
"Infinite Wisdom" - 1 time
"Eye of Omnipotence" - 1 time
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - 1 time
"Omnipotent being" - 1 time
"Great Spirit" - 1 time
"Glorious being" - 1 time
"Supreme being" - 1 time
"Almighty being" - 1 time
"Creator" - 1 time
"Jesus Christ" - 0
"Salvation" - 0
"Messiah" - 0
"Savior" - 0
"Redeemer" - 0
"Jehovah" - 0

With such a large assortment of phrases, I find it amazing that Lillback does not provide a single example of where Washington prayed to Jesus specifically or directly.

Along with the actual wordage of Washington's prayers, a number of historians and skeptics point to the fact that Washington did not kneel in prayer. As Bishop White stated:

The father of our country, whenever in this city, as well as during the Revolutionary Was as during his presidency, attended divine service in Christ Church of this city...His behavior was always serious and attentive; but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to truth to declare, that I never saw him in the said attitude.

While this may seem like a mundane issue -- and I would agree with such an assessment -- a number of historians use this point to illustrate Washington's distrust of pious religion. Though this may be the case, I believe that the larger issue, the fact that Washington DID pray, is of far greater importance.

As was the case with his participation in communion, Washington's prayers are, at best, very contradictory evidence. The fact that he prayed should be obvious to anyone. However, to whom he was praying to is in question. Though he was not known to have knelt in prayer, Washington was, in the end, a devout man of prayer.

To be (a Christian) or not to be (a Christian). That is the question.

As noted above, any argument of Washington being a deist is historically inaccurate and, quite frankly, silly. On the other side of the coin, to what degree Washington accepted and embraced the Christian faith -- and more specifically his Anglican faith -- is difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty. For example, Dr. James Abercrombie publicly questioned Washington's Christianity when he wrote:

I do not believe that any degree of recollection would bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation; further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance on Christian worship, in connection with the natural reserve of his character.

On the other hand, Washington's adopted daughter, Nelly Custis, had this to say regarding Washington's faith:

I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men." He communed with his God in secret.

Again, this religious paradox of George Washington makes it almost impossible to say conclusively what Washington's feelings towards Christianity actually were.

To add another level of complexity to this argument, Christian apologists, who argue for Washington's orthodoxy, regularly site his letter to the Delaware Indian chiefs in May of 1779. In the letter, Washington states that these Indian Tribes, would "do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ." In contrast, those who favor the secularism of Washington counter with his 1796 letter to a group of Indian tribes, in which he invokes the "Great Spirit" of the Indian people. Yet again, an obvious contradiction prevents us from conclusively pinpointing Washington's view on Christianity.

One last thing to consider is the impact of unitarianism -- small u as Jon Rowe points out -- on the religion of our founding generation. Instead of making that argument here, I will simply refer you to an earlier posting that I did on this specific issue. You can find it by clicking here.

In conclusion, though the religious paradox of George Washington prevents us from determining his exact beliefs, we are still able to make a few general conclusions:

1.) Washington was not a deist.
2.) It is virtually impossible to classify Washington as a Christian in the orthodox sense. The evidence available suggests otherwise. His lack of participation in communion, coupled with the absence of Christian supplication in prayer, creates more than a reasonable doubt on this matter.
3.) Washington was a man of prayer.
4.) At the very least, Washington maintained a deep appreciation and allegiance to Christianity. This is evidenced by his regular attendance and his devotion to Christian principles.
5.) Maybe most importantly, Washington's religion is the quintessential enigma of early American religious history.

So how should we classify Washington? Perhaps it would be smart, based on the body of evidence, to not classify him at all. However, in my opinion, I see Washington as a Christian-leaning unitarian or a unitarian-leaning Christian.

Should We Celebrate Columbus Day?

2008-10-13T09:02:00.001-07:00

516 years ago, on October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus (Cristobal Colon) made landfall on a small island in the present-day Bahamas, which he later named San Salvador. Upon his arrival, Columbus proudly declared to the native people of the island -- the Taino -- that the land was forever more the domain of Spain and the Catholic Church.

As we all know, Columbus was certainly not the first person to "discover" America. Instead, Columbus came along at the perfect time. As historian Alan Taylor points out in his book, American Colonies:

Thanks to the newly invented printing press, word of Columbus’s voyage and discovery spread rapidly and widely through Europe. Eagerly read, his published report ran through nine editions in 1493 and twenty by 1500. Publication in multiplying print helped to ensure that Columbus's voyages would lead to an accelerating spiral of further voyages meant to discern the bounds and exploit the peoples of the new lands (Taylor, 35).

Thanks to the dramatic discovery, coupled with the even more dramatic tales of his journey, Columbus has been catapulted to the status of a national hero in American popular culture. In many religious circles he is seen as a pious man of God who never flinched in his quest for a New World. The following video helps to demonstrate the pop-culture interpretation of Columbus and his journey:

However exciting it may be for us to remember Columbus as a pure-hearted explorer, the historical record cannot be ignored. As a result, it is plainly clear that Columbus was not the benevolent explorer we often consider him to be in American popular culture. Instead, Columbus was very much a tyrant who used religion to justify his acts of violence towards the native people of the "New World." Again, Alan Taylor points out what Columbus' real intentions were when it came to the native people of the "New World:"

Columbus hoped to convert the Indians to Christianity and to recruit their bodies and their wealth to assist Europeans in a final crusade to crush Islam and reclaim Jerusalem. Such a victory would then invite Christ’s return to earth to reign over a millennium of perfect justice and harmony (Taylor, 33).

Columbus took his newfound religious quest to another extreme when he chose to rename himself by adopting the first name of "Christoferens," or "Christ-bearer." Under the banner of a Christ-bearer, Columbus began his work of death throughout the Americas. Alan Taylor captures just how horrible these atrocities were when he writes:

Columbus distributed Indian captives among the colonists to work on their plantations and to serve as sex slaves. By 1496, Hispanola's surviving "free" natives had been rendered tributary -- obliged to bring in a quota of gold for every person over the age of fourteen.

Columbus's slaughter and enslavement of Indians troubled the pious Spanish monarchs, who declared in 1500 that the Indians were free and not subject to servitude...

...In addition to killing and enslaving the Taino, Columbus antagonized most of the colonists, who bristled at his domineering manner and hot temper. As a result, violent mutinies and more violent reprisals by Columbus induced the monarchs to revoke his executive authority in 1500. (Taylor, 37).

With such a horrible record of enslavement, brutality and death, I again pose to you all the following question: should we celebrate Columbus Day? The historian in me says yes, since I believe all historical events -- both good and evil -- should be remembered. However, does this mean that Columbus deserves his own national holiday? With a historical record that is replete with examples of tyranny, enslavement and murder another side of me says absolutely not.

Your thoughts...

"Mr. Jefferson, I know that you are a Deist..."

2008-10-11T10:44:00.001-07:00

Bill Baker of Colonial Williamsburg is well known for his portrayal of President Thomas Jefferson. As can be expected of any person portraying Jefferson, Baker is well-acquainted with questions regarding Jefferson's religious beliefs. In the following video, Baker (Jefferson) is posed a question by an audience member who asks, "Mr. Jefferson, I know that you are a Deist. I'm wondering if this was the reason for your editing the Bible as we know it into your own version of the Bible?"

Mr. Jefferson's (Baker's) response is quite interesting. See for yourself:

The question is asked at 1:33 seconds.

Religion and Sex in Early America

2008-10-04T10:50:00.000-07:00

How Gender Relations and Patriarchal
Dominance Established Criminal Precedent

Having worked in law enforcement for a few years, I have maintained a strong interest in the criminal world. As a result, I occasionally enjoy a brief overview of the history and evolution of crime and punishment in ages past.

One of the most recent books on criminal history that I have read is Sharon Block’s Rape & Sexual Power in Early America, which was published in 2006 by the University of North Carolina Press. In the book, Block discusses the origins, evolution and perception of sex and gender relationships during the earliest years of American colonization and revolution. Naturally, the ideas and motivations behind sexual activity in the 17th and 18th centuries were greatly influenced by the religious beliefs of those eras, which is why I have decided to post my brief review of Block’s book here.

As is the case with all sexual crime, power and control lay at the heart of the matter. In the early years of American society, however, sexual crimes such as rape and incest were routinely seen as crimes of unbridled lust and passion, in which the perpetrator was unable to bridle his desires. To make matters worse, women were regularly labeled as being the instigators of these vile acts while the men were seen as the helpless bystanders, unable to withstand the seduction of their victims. As Block states:

Although Americans wrote surprisingly frequently about rape, it remained a difficult crime to charge and to successfully prove. Early Americans often saw the violence of forced sex as an unfortunate result of sexual desire rather than the original intent of the sexual act. Passions – understood as strong feelings or emotions – remained an explanation for sexual desires into the nineteenth century, as their meaning moved from a primarily religious focus to one that combined religious and secular concerns. As a result of passions, sexual coercion was less an aberrant act of violent sexual force than an extension of normative sexual practices. A rape might begin with voluntary social or sexual offers and end with the aggressor attempting to continue normal social relations after the rape. Contrary to modern expectations, physical force did not provide a clear dividing line between coercion and consent. Consensual sex could be physically forceful (17).

Or in other words, “No means no” actually meant, “Pursue even harder.”

One of the central themes to Block’s work, which is essential to understanding sexual activity in early America, is the issue of gender relations. As Block points out, gender relations of the 17th and 18th centuries were directly tied to the patriarchal nature of religion and government. The church, which castigated women as being frivolous and undomesticated in their sexuality, placed the “evils” of sexual relations primarily on the shoulders of women. As a result, victims of rape were regularly chastised by church authorities for being too flamboyant and inviting with their sexuality. Or in other words, the women were simply “asking for it.” In addition, men were seen as the “custodians” of sex, since they could be trusted with exercising it in an "appropriate" manner. As a result, this type of “authority” became the ideal breeding ground for manipulation and domination that invited even the most reserved predator:

Some men used an array of social interactions as a springboard for sexual relations. Those forms of sexual coercion differed greatly from the archetypal stranger rape committed through brute force and grave bodily threat. Neighbors in small communities might use their everyday social relations to create opportunities for sexual force or read inappropriate socializing as evidence of a woman’s consent to subsequent sexual relations. (77).

As can be imagined, this type of gender relationship gave way to patriarchal dominance that permeated virtually every social encounter between man and woman. Whether in friendship, courtship, or marriage men could find a justification for their sexual desires.

Ethical and moral issues, like the ones brought up by Block, are difficult to discuss to say the least, but they are imperative if we hope to understand the beliefs and motivations of a given era. Understanding the criminal aspects of a society, along with what that particular society deemed to be acceptable and unacceptable behavior, can help historians take a moral “pulse” on the past. In addition, it helps us to sift through the abundance of moral rhetoric to uncover the fragments of ethical behavior that past societies actually cherished and exhaled as being protected by God and the law. For these reasons, Sharon Block’s Rape & Sexual Power in Early America receives an A in my grade book.

Results of the V.P. Debate

2008-10-02T20:41:00.000-07:00

Ok political junkies...what did you think of the V.P. debate? Here is my take:

So, the V.P. debate was...well...vanilla-flavored. The cardinal rule for all V.P. candidates is DO NO HARM and I think both Biden and Palin succeeded in this primary objective.

As for who won the debate...well...hard to say. I think using a baseball analogy is best in explaining my opinion.

Palin came out swinging the bat. It is obvious that she wasn't looking for a bunt or a walk. As a result, I think she got on base with a single or maybe a double at best. She certainly didn't knock anything out of the park, nor did she strike out. A steady performance for the Governor from Alaska.

As for Biden, he was clearly on the defense. As is the case in all debates, facing a woman is problematic at best. One can come off looking condescending or patronizing for even the smallest thing. Bush Sr. certainly learned this lesson against Geraldine Ferraro, as have a number of other candidates who faced female opponents. Simply put, it is a delicate balancing act. So, with this in mind, I think Biden hit a sacrifice fly that advanced the runner (Obama). He had a couple of chances where he could have attacked but chose to hold back, which was probably a smart tactical decision.

So who won? If you believe the major polls then Biden is the winner. Here is what the polls of the major news networks have to say:

Fox News: Biden 53% Palin 47%
CNN: Biden 72% Palin 25%
MSNBC: Biden 53% Palin 37%
CBS: Biden 59% Palin 41%

As for myself, I think the debate ended in the same fashion as the War of 1812: a Status Quo Antebellum, meaning that nothing really changed. I don't see this debate as a game changer for anyone. The game is still very much afoot!

Don't Vote

2008-10-02T13:10:00.000-07:00

Here is another STUPID ad by a bunch of Hollywood pukes. I love how they only bring up the issues that are important to liberals! Basically they are saying "get out and vote...so long as your vote goes for Obama. AAAAAHHHHHHH!!! How I HATE political parties!

Great Moments in Presidential History, Part II

2008-10-01T12:10:00.001-07:00

In 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon, who had served under President Eisenhower for eight years, embarked upon his first attempt at capturing the presidency for himself. Unfortunately for Nixon, a young and ambitious Senator from Massachusetts named John F. Kennedy stood ready to oppose him. During the course of the campaign, Senator Kennedy chose to embark upon a new strategy in American politics by challenging Nixon to a series of televised debates in front of the nation. Kennedy's strategy, which he hoped would neutralize the Republican Party's popularity, was to demonstrate on live television just how presidential he looked in comparison to the crass appearance of Nixon.

In the end Kennedy's strategy paid off. While those who listened to the 1960 debate via radio insisted that Nixon had one, the larger television audience proclaimed Kennedy the victor.

And here is a segment from that debate. Note the stark difference between Kennedy's poise, and Nixon's disheveled appearance:

The election of 1960 is a noteworthy historical event not only because of the election, but also because of President Eisenhower's farewell address, which is still considered to be one of the finest in American history. Here is a segment of that address:

Almost prophetic isn't it! Eisenhower warns of the development of a military/industrial complex that could threaten the very liberty of the American republic. In my personal opinion Dwight D. Eisenhower was the last TRULY GREAT president in our nation's history.

Newest SNL Sarah Palin Skit

2008-09-29T16:26:00.000-07:00

BTW, Palin's approval ratings are beginning to tank:

A number of conservative organizations -- along with some members of the McCain campaign allegedly -- have called for her removal. Is Palin in trouble? Though I am not a huge fan of the lady, I think she has been getting hammered in the press. Only time will tell whether or not she can withstand the onslaught!

Great Moments in Presidential Debates

2008-09-25T14:05:00.001-07:00

Being that the election is only a few weeks away, I thought that this might be a fun way to remember some of the "classic" moments from elections past.

A Democratic Triumph
In 1988, Dan Quayle -- who had been criticized for his lack of experience -- chose to compare himself to JFK. Lloyd Benson ceased the opportunity and literally pounced all over the foolish Senator from Indiana:

A Republican Triumph
In 1980, presidential incumbent Jimmy Carter attempted to portray Ronald Reagan as a candidate who was unsympathetic to the needs of senior citizens, the poor, etc. His attack on Reagan during the 1980 debate completely backfired:

Isn't it interesting that so many of the issues from these elections past are the EXACT SAME issues we are debating in 2008?!?

"Why are you an Independent?"

2008-09-24T07:52:00.000-07:00

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been repeatedly asked about my "Independent Voter" picture on the right hand side of my blog. Several friends have asked me why I choose to be an Independent. After all, aren't Independents just a bunch of fence-sitters? Why not take a stand? Usually my conservative friends will ask me why I don't align myself with the "moral" Republicans, since it is they who fervently oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. On the flip side, my liberal friends will ask why I don't stand for "change," especially when the Republicans have not done all that well in recent years.

Ok, fair enough. Here is why I refuse to align myself with a political party:

First off -- and I realize this isn't all that scientific -- but I don't want to be a part of your stupid clubs! And make no mistake, political parties are just glorified national clubs. I have seen too many of my friends and family lend an ear and a blind allegiance to the agenda of the Repub/Dems without giving it any thought. Oh, and of course they hide behind the fail safe assertion that they "vote on the candidate or the issue" and not the party.

WHATEVER!

A recent Gallop survey concluded that 75% of those who affiliate with any given party vote down party lines! My question is, how is this being objective?

With that said, here is the fundamental reason why I will never align with a political party. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE AGAINST IT!!! Here is just a sample of what they had to say about political parties and factions:

George Washington's Farewell Address

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Washington's words are prophetic!

Benjamin Franklin on Political Factions:

"Passion governs, and she never governs wisely. The ignorance of those petty minds who yield an allegiance to political factions fail to understand the true nature and purpose of our democracy."

"Moderation is always best."

Thomas Jefferson:

"If the only way by which to enter heaven is through an allegiance to a political party, then I will refuse to reside there."

Our founding fathers understood that political division and argument was necessary and good for a democracy. HOWEVER, they also understood that political factionalism -- i.e. parties -- were counterproductive and destructive. Lending an allegiance to a political party causes a patriotism and devotion TO THAT PARTY, not to the nation.

So what are my gripes with the Republicans? Democrats?

In my opinion, the Republican Party is the party of hypocrisy, while the Democrat Party is the party of arrogance. Here is why:

THE REPUBLICANS

Republicans claim to be the keepers of truth, justice and the American way. They are the TRUE party of patriotism and morality...or so they say. Republicans are also supposedly for limited government and fiscal responsibility. While all of these BELIEFS sound nice, the reality is that the Republicans have come to represent the opposite of everything they claim, hence my assertion that they are the party of hypocrisy.

As for spending, any Republican who claims that their party spends less is an outright liar! The general trend of spending -- for both parties -- has been on the rise for the past 80 years. Now, this increase has nothing to do with the fact that our nation has grown as well. Instead it is an incremental increase. See for yourselves:

This first chart shows how much we have spent as a nation in relation to our Gross Domestic Product. As you can see, government spending has been on the rise for almost 100 years. Naturally you see a spike during WWII, which is understandable. However, what is not understandable is why taxes, spending, etc. have consistently grown for the past 80 years. And yes, our beloved Republicans are as much to blame as anyone!

And in this chart you can see some of the trends of our national debt over the past 50 years. And while we can thank some of our older presidents -- Truman to Ford -- for eliminating a big portion of our debt, you can also see that it is THE REPUBLICANS who have increased it in recent years:

In addition to spending, the size of our government has grown almost exponentially in the past 50 years. So much for being "fiscally responsible" and advocating small/limited government!

As for morality, the Republicans have proven to be equally yoked with their Democratic brethren. Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy, etc.

THE DEMOCRATS:

Democrats love to say that they are the "party of the people." It is the Democrats who "save" the little guy from the clutches of evil corporations and other moneyed interests by introducing government oversight and intervention. They are the party of "charity" and peace. In addition, the Democrats claim to know more about the economy and to be the champions of true reform. Their quest to save the world from global warming is a perfect example of their "benevolence."

First off, Democrats are ANYTHING BUT the champions of the little guy. After all, those greedy religious radicals -- which Democrats love to hate -- don't give anything back do they???

Which group is it that gave the most money in charity?

And of course, we've all heard Democrats make the claim that the United States does not do enough to help the poor, needy, etc. We should be more like those other countries, right???

Which country CONSISTENTLY gives the most in charitable donations??? And this chart is not based on amount of money given, but percentage given, so you can't make the claim that we give more because we have more. Percentage wise we still give FAR MORE than anyone else!

Now, we can't talk about the Democrats without mentioning the fact that they INSIST upon having more government intervention in our lives and in the economy. After all, this is good for business, right?

Wrong!

In conclusion, it is my opinion that political parties COMPLETELY MISS THE MARK when it comes to finding real solutions. Face it, no party has a monopoly on good ideas or the truth, nor is one party inherently more patriotic, moral or intelligent. And don't give me the "less of two evils" nonsense. Both parties are equally yoked in suckiness!

Documentaries on Religion

2008-09-23T12:59:00.001-07:00

Here are a few segments from a couple of excellent documentaries on religion in America. If you are a fan of religious history -- which I admit I am -- then you will love these:

Friends of God

Religion and Evolution

The Bible is perfect? God created the earth in 6 days? Dinosaurs actually lived in biblical times? You gotta love religious fundamentalist nonsense! If it wasn't for the religious wacko right-wing fanatics I might consider being a Republican!

Jesus Camp

A 269-269 Tie?!?

2008-09-22T13:22:00.000-07:00

As the election approaches its final climax we are beginning to see the polls tighten up in the various battleground states that are still in play. As a result, the likelihood of a 269-269 tie in the electoral college is becoming more likely with each passing day. Though odds-makers claim that a 269-269 tie is relatively low, the fact remains that this outcome is still within the realm of possibility.

So what happens if the election ends in an electoral college tie? Most people think that the popular vote would then come into play. WRONG! The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution spells out EXACTLY what will happen in the event of a 269-269 tie.

If we have a tie on November 4th, the House of Representatives will convene on January 6th to vote for the next president of the United States. Now, most Republicans fear this outcome because of the fact that the Democrats are favored to pick up a few seats in the house. However, the voting is NOT based on a MAJORITY in the House. Instead, the 12th Amendment stipulates that EACH STATE gets one vote. This means that a heavily populated state like California will be on the EXACT SAME playing field as Wyoming and other small states. So, what will happen is each state delegation will meet and cast their vote for the next president. If the state has a Republican majority then the state will likely vote for McCain. Here is an example:

Arkansas (which has 4 representatives in the House) is split with 3 Democrats and 1 Republican. In the event of a 269-269 tie, these four representatives would meet and (most likely) cast their vote for Obama, being that the Democrats have the majority in that state's delegation. HOWEVER, keep in mind that Arkansas is heavily favored to go for McCain on November 4. So if these delegates voted for Obama they would be essentially voting AGAINST the will of their constituents. This scenario is evident in at least 15 other states as well.

In addition, if a state has an equal number of Democrat and Republican representatives and their vote results in a tie, that state will ABSTAIN from a vote on the president.

So what does all this mean? In all likelihood it means that Barack Obama would probably emerge as the president in the event of a 269-269 tie, but it is FAR from certain. There are still a number of scenarios in which John McCain could be declared the winner. In reality it is anyone's guess.

Another important component to keep in mind in the event of a 269-269 tie is that the SENATE will vote for the V.P. Being that the Democrats are favored to pick up a couple of seats in the Senate it is likely that they would vote for Biden, however, this is far from a guarantee. Keep in mind that senators may end up voting with the masses they represent, so as not to upset their constituents. Also, Joe Lieberman (an Independent) is likely to go with the Republicans on this one. In the event of a tie in the Senate, we must remember that the current V.P. (Dick Cheney) would cast the tie-breaking vote, which would in all likelihood go Republican.

Again, what does this mean? It means that there is a possibility of having a MIXED presidential ticket in the event of a 269-269 tie. We could end up seeing an Obama/Palin or a McCain/Biden White House.

One more wrench to throw into the equation: if the vote in the House of Representatives for president ends in a tie (or gridlock) the 12th Amendment stipulates that the Senate would then elect an INTERIM PRESIDENT from their V.P. selection, who would then serve for two years until the next HOR convened in the following election (2010). This means that if the HOR ends in a tie or gridlock, we could have Joe Biden or Sarah Palin end up serving a two-year term as President of the United States.

Think this is all a bit crazy or that maybe I am making it up? It is ALL in the 12th Amendment.

So how did we end up like this in the first place? It all goes back to the 1800 presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back then there was no such thing as a presidential "ticket," which meant that the candidate with the second most electoral votes became the V.P. In 1800, Jefferson was the clear winner over presidential incumbent, John Adams. However, the electors (who had 2 votes instead of one) also accidentally gave Aaron Burr (who was intended to be Jefferson's V.P.) the same amount of votes. As a result, the election went to the House, where delegates loyal to Adams tried to get Burr placed in the White House over Jefferson. In the end, Jefferson won out, but only after months of controversy. As a result, the 12th Amendment was created, which was supposed to clean up the mess. Only time will tell if the 12th Amendment ends up CREATING a new mess in the 21st Century!!! =)

Here is an excellent video that helps explain this mess:

Happy Constitution Day!

2008-09-17T11:26:00.001-07:00

221 years ago on this day the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia adopted our nation's Constitution. Though the process was tedious and raised contention among the delegates, the result was well worth all the effort. While there is no debating that our Constitution has evolved over the years, the central essence of the document itself remains unchanged.

Unfortunately, Constitution Day is often obscured in modern American society. Independence Day (July 4) has all but deleted the national memory of this day. And while Independence Day is a wonderful occasion to say the least, we would do well to remember that Constitution Day is every bit as significant. Here are some quotes on the Constitution from a number of prominent American figures:

"The Constitution does not guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it."
-Benjamin Franklin

"I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."
-Benjamin Franklin

"I consider the difference between a system founded on the legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty and a constitution."
-James Madison

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
-Abraham Lincoln

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
-Patrick Henry

"I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag."
-George Washington

The View on Church/State Separation and "Original Intent"

2008-09-16T11:55:00.003-07:00

Though I am not a big fan of The View, I thought that this short clip would help instigate a good discussion on a couple of interesting issues.

As part of John McCain's appearance on the daytime talk show, the Senator was asked to comment on his view of the Church/State debate, in particular some of the perceived differences he and Sarah Palin have on the issue. In addition, McCain was questioned about his opinion of the ever-controversial Roe v. Wade decision. Here is the video of the interview:

As we all know, the doctrine of "Original Intent" has become extremely popular in a number of circles. The idea of returning to a "pure" understanding of our Constitution, as our founders understood it, invokes powerful feelings of patriotism and nostalgia. However, how much of an "Original Intent" interpretation of the Constitution do we really want?

As Whoopi Goldberg points out in this clip, a STRICT interpretation of the Constitution, as our founding fathers saw it, would have to include -- among other things -- a return to slavery. Now, it would be completely foolish for us to believe that the supporters of "Original Intent" want to bring back slavery. With that said, the question we are forced to ask is, "What kind of ORIGINAL INTENT are we talking about?"

All of us realize that returning to a STRICT and LITERAL interpretation of the Constitution is completely ridiculous and impossible. For example, strict adherence to the Constitution would require us to eliminate the Air Force and the Marines from our national defense, since the Constitution calls for providing for the common defense by means of an Army and Navy. And of course, very few Americans -- if any -- would be in favor of eliminating the Air Force, Marines, etc.

I realize that I am essentially knit picking here, but I do think that this is an issue worth exploring. Exactly what does the "Original Intent" doctrine mean? What role -- if any -- does religion play in understanding this doctrine? Can we even call it "Original Intent" after sifting away the undesirable and obsolete laws set down by our founding fathers?

In addition to these questions, I do not want to ignore the other issue mentioned in this video, that being the never-ending church/state argument. I guess its ironic that this video mentions the "In God We Trust" issue, which is something Jon Rowe has brought up in a recent post below.

Anyway, your thoughts...

I Think, Therefore I Am...a Unitarian

2008-09-11T17:24:00.000-07:00

I have always been amazed at the propensity of many within American society to classify our founders as either strictly Deists or orthodox Christians. Whether in political circles, religious congregations or college classrooms, it seems as though this “custody battle” for the religious legacy of our founders will never be resolved. Christian Nationalists, who refuse to recognize even the possibility that America’s founders embraced a belief other than orthodox Christianity, have embarked on a crusade to “save” America’s “Christian” origins from the clutches of evil secularists. On the other side of the coin, radical secularists, clothed in the robe of scholarly arrogance and superiority, have countered their Christian foes by attempting to eradicate any and all traces of Christian sentiment in the legacy of our founders. Though I must admit my belief that both sides in this ridiculous argument are missing the mark, I am also compelled to recognize the fact that the Christian right is more at fault for its efforts to revise or “save” America’s founding legacy. While there are a number of secularist scholars who remain steadfast in their views, their numbers seem virtually insignificant when compared to the army of the Christian Nationalists.

This ongoing argument between Christian and Secularist is something I have written about many times in the past. Though I tend to be a centrist in my views, I believe that there is a sensible answer to this seemingly ageless debate. The answer does not rest on one’s ability to successfully debunk the Deist or Christian views, but instead centers on the true religion of America’s key founders: Unitarianism

The roots of Unitarian doctrine, though deeply entrenched in the rationalism of the Enlightenment, can be best explained by one of its earliest supporters. The Reverend Charles Chauncy of Boston became one of the earliest proponents of rationalism and intellectualism. These beliefs ended up putting him at odds with one of the heroes of the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards, who supported a passionate and emotional communion with Deity. In his pamphlet, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England, Chauncy lays out the case for intellectualism in religion. In response to the explosion of emotionalism brought on by the Great Awakening, Chauncy writes:

“Men may open to us the Temper of their Minds, in a Relation of their Experiences: But even here, we are liable to be deceived. They may be mistaken about their own State; and what is worse, may represent Things different from what they really are: so at the best we only judge in this case upon Supposition. And as there is so much Hypocrisy in the World, it would be but Prudence to hear Men’s Declarations, respecting themselves with a heedful caution. It may perhaps be a Truth here, as well as in other Cases, Actions speak louder than Words.”

In this declaration, Chauncy not only promotes the benefits of rational thought, but suggests that personal emotional communion with the divine should be taken with a grain of salt. In essence, Chauncy invokes the doctrine of Unitarianism.

For those who supported Chauncy’s assertions, along with other intellectual beliefs that were being tossed around, rational thought in a religious context became a strong belief, which liberated the mind from the tyranny of pious ministers. As John Locke and other Enlightenment philosophers had argued, mankind was a free agent. Historian Sydney Ahlstrom points out in his book, A Religious History of the American People the following:

God’s grace and mercy were needed, to be sure; yet with regard to the nature of man and human ability, these liberal ministers showed perhaps a greater measure of confidence than any significant group of churchmen in Reformed tradition. And what buoyed their confidence above all was the exhilaration of national independence, the economic and social advances of the American people, and the great destiny (already manifest) of this New World democracy. The idea prevailed widely that “this new man, this American” was a new Adam, sinless, innocent – mankind’s great second chance. Nowhere was it given so well-rooted a Christian interpretation as among these New England liberals, whose ideas on man were far more determinative than the ideas about Godhead which later won them the name “Unitarian.”

Naturally, critics of this new “infidel” doctrine went on the attack, labeling early Unitarians as essentially closet atheists. After all, these “infidels” had publicly challenged the religious status quo of Christian orthodoxy. Even contemporary Christian Nationalists follow the same formula as earlier Christian zealots in their attacks on Unitarianism, which they see as nothing more than Deism in disguise. Unitarian doctrine, however, was not merely an infusion of Deist ideology, but was an incorporation of both Christian and Deist principles. As the Reverend William Ellery Channing stated:

Let us learn the distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Many use these words without meaning, and are very zealous about sounds. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But we all believe in these; we all believe that the Father sent the Son, and gives, to those that ask, the Holy Spirit. We are all Trinitarians, if this is the belief in Trinitarianism. But it is not. The Trinitarian believes that the one God is three distinct persons, called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and he believes that each is the only true God, and yet that the three are only one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian believes that there is but one person possessing supreme Divinity, even the Father. This is the great distinction; let it be kept steadily in view…I am persuaded, that under these classes of high Unitarians many Christians ought to be ranked who call themselves orthodox and are Trinitarians (Reverend William Channing, 1798. Quoted in Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 395).

Reverend Channing further explains the rationale of Unitarian thought when he writes:

It seems to me of singular importance that Christianity should be recognized and presented in its true character…The low views of our religion, which have prevailed too long, should give place to this highest one. They suited perhaps darker ages. But they have done their work, and should pass away. Christianity should now be disencumbered and set free…It should come forth from the darkness and corruption of the past in its own celestial splendour, and in its divine simplicity. It should be comprehended as having but one purpose, the perfection of human nature, the elevation of men into nobler beings (Reverend William Channing, The Essence of the Cristian Religion, 1798. Quoted in Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 399).

While Reverend Channing was a more Christian-leaning Unitarian, his statements help to illustrate the fact that Unitarianism was an incorporation of both Deist and Christian philosophy. The fact that Channing openly questions Trinitarian doctrine is of note because it illustrates the fact that Unitarianism relied heavily on the rationalism of enlightened Deism. This explains why Unitarians such as James Madison were so vehemantly opposed to orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, but not opposed to the doctrines of Christ. In his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison openly attacks Christianity as it had been practiced, but also defends the “pure” religion of Christ:

experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

This understanding of Unitarian doctrine also helps us to understand why George Washington refused to take Communion, but still regularly attended the Episcopal Church. As Sydney Ahlstrom states, “For the Unitarian…the Lord’s Supper was regarded more and more as neither a sacramental ‘means of grace’ nor a ‘converting ordinance,’ but as a simple memorial” (Religious History, 391). For the orthodox Christian, however, Communion still remained an extremely important ordinance and expression of public faith and piety. For Washington to omit such a practice from his personal religious practices is a perfect illustration of his Unitarian leanings.

In conclusion, it it important to note that each of our key founders -- Madison, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Monroe, Hamilton, Adams -- were profoundly impacted by Unitarian philosophy. This explains why these men were able to both embrace AND reject Christian doctrines. Unitarianism was the key religion of our mainstream founders, and it allowed them the flexibility to believe -- or disbelieve -- as much or as little of the Christian faith as they personally saw fit.

Large Hadron Collider Rap

2008-09-09T20:53:00.000-07:00

One of the coolest inventions of mankind, the Large Hadron Collider (known as CERN) in France and Switzerland will be coming online in the near future. Though I am no physicist and have less than an elementary understanding of particle physics, I have been following the progress of CERN for the past 8 months or so. It is absolutely fascinating what they are doing over there and what they may discover. If all goes to plan we could have a completely new understanding of the universe, the origin of matter, etc. Or if you believe what other "experts" say, the collider could create a black hole and completely destroy Earth and possibly the universe. =)

Here is a funny (but pretty accurate) rap done on the CERN particle collider:

Here is a brief explanation of what they are doing at CERN:

Coral Ridge Ministries and David Barton

2008-09-09T15:12:00.000-07:00

More historical Nonsense from Christian Nationalists

While surfing Godtube -- a fantastic source for Christian nationalism and general historical nonsense -- I came across a couple of clips from Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian ministry that is passionately dedicated to the "Christian America" cause. Pastor John Rabe, who has worked with the likes of David Barton and Peter Lillback in the past, arrogantly asserts that the modern Evangelical understanding of America's founding is the only historical truth that has any relevance, even though the overwhelming majority of the historical community laughs at such an assertion -- an issue we have dealt with ad nauseum on this blog.

My favorite line from John Rabe is, "Are those of us who believe that America was founded as a Christian nation ignoring our history?"

Short answer: HELL YES!

The first clip is nothing more than an advertisement or preview for their upcoming "10 Truths About America's Christian Heritage" video. Unfortunately, I was unable to discover these mysterious "10 truths" due to the fact that Coral Ridge Ministries is charging $20.00 for the video. Oh well, I guess the rest of us will have to make due without these mysterious pearls of wisdom.

Anyway, here is the first video:

Also, here is an old "classic" of David Barton...well...being David Barton:

I never tire of Barton's assertion that the majority of our nation's founding fathers were, "Evangelical Christians." If that is so, then why does Barton push the "Christian nation" argument? After all, this nation's earliest Evangelicals were some of the most passionate defenders of a separation of church and state.

History of Religion and Politics in Presidential Elections

2008-09-06T13:06:00.001-07:00

An Historian's Perspective

Dr. Paul Harvey of the Religion in American History blog -- and also one of my graduate professors -- has posted a brief overview of some comments he made to the Rotary Club of Colorado Springs on the topic of religion and politics. To be more specific, Dr. Harvey was invited to the Rotary Club to address the audience on the topic: "Religion and Politics in Presidential Elections: A Historical Perspective." Being that this has become a central topic on the American Creation blog as of late -- as well as a topic of contention -- I thought some of you might find Dr. Havey's comments of interest.

As part of his speech, Dr. Harvey illustrated how prevalent of a role religion plays in our voting practices today. He states:

Frequently in my classroom I'll start with this question: "would you vote for an atheist or a Unitarian or someone who denied the divinity of Jesus for President.” Most of the time, no one raises a hand, except perhaps for a long-haired young man in the back row. Then I’ll read out quotes about religion from the founding fathers, without telling my students where those quotes come from --some from Washington, some from Jefferson, some from James Madison, etc, and ask my students if they would vote for someone with those sentiments. Usually, no one, or only one or two students, will profess to do so. I then reveal that they’ve just voted against almost the entire generation of founding fathers, more or less. This leads to a discussion of why we seem to have a de facto religious test for candidates now despite the fact that such a test is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Student replies suggest that they just wouldn't trust someone who fundamentally violated the common sense of the culture concerning religious matters. Thomas Jefferson famously said, "We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists." These classes make me think that, perhaps, now we are all pietists.

The reason for this contradiction I started with above has to do with a lot of things, but I’ll point here to the coincidence of two of them: the ratification of the secular Constitution in 1789, followed closely by the socalled 2nd Great Awakening and the rapid rise of evangelicalism as a dominant form of American religious expression. The first foresaw a tight regulation of religion in politics, and a distinct separation; the second made such a separation impossible. Thus, we have a de jure separation of church and state, and a de jure notion of the separation of the religious from the political; but historically we’ve had a profound de facto intermingling of the two.

Dr. Harvey continues:

Recently American political historians have created an entire world of interpretation based on looking at the connection between religion and presidential politics in the years roughly 1800-1860. Here is what they have found. Voting patterns nationally fell along these lines: the pietists voted one way, the liturgicals another. The Pietists were largely Federalists and Whigs; the Liturgicals were largely Democrats. The Pietists, many of whom had a Calvinist sensibility, believed in the religious improvement of society, and using a sort of alliance of government and religious institutions to bring the Kingdom of God on Earth; the Liturgicals typically believed that the spheres of government and religion should be much more separate, and that attempts to bring about the millennium presupposed a religious activism that went outside the sphere of religion. (Click here to read Harvey's entire post)

It is this clash between the "de jure" separation of church and state by our founders, and the "de jure" historical intermingling of religion and politics over the course of our nation's history that has caused the fierce political and ideological clashes between Christian Nationalists and historians. When we come to the realization that America's founders did in fact expect religious prerequisites -- or as they put it, "tests" -- to play no role in determining our nation's leaders, we will also come to the realization that America's modern politics are light years from where they started. In a very real sense, America does have a “religious test” for its candidates, simply because of our historical evolution as a nation. As a result, it is likely that a candidate with the same moral or religious views as Jefferson, Washington, etc. will not take office any time soon.

In no way am I suggesting that a person's values should be ignored in the selection of a president, senator, etc. Of course people should vote for a candidate based on their values, hopes, etc. Even non-believing voters follow this template. Instead, I believe that religion has unfortunately become a "must-have" for our modern candidates. The simple fact that a candidate's Christian leanings often take precedent to his/her economic plans, foreign policy experience, etc. shows that we do indeed have a religious test in America today.

The Origins of Proslavery Christianity

2008-09-04T16:06:00.001-07:00

Kevin Levin of the Cliopatria award-winning blog, Civil War Memory has posted a brief overview of a new book by historian Charles F. Irons entitled, The Origins of Proslavery Christianity: White and Black Evangelicals in Colonial and Antebellum Virginia. The book is still relatively new, having been released in May of this year. The University of North Carolina Press had the following to say on Irons' work:

"As Charles Irons persuasively argues, white evangelicals' ideas about slavery grew directly out of their interactions with black evangelicals. Set in Virginia, the largest slave holding state and the hearth of the southern evangelical movement, this book draws from church records, denominational newspapers, slave narratives, and private letters and diaries to illuminate the dynamic relationship between whites and blacks within the evangelical fold. Irons reveals that when whites theorized about their moral responsibilities toward slaves, they thought first of their relationships with bondmen in their own churches. Thus, African American evangelicals inadvertently shaped the nature of the pro slavery argument. When they chose which churches to join, used the procedures set up for church discipline, rejected colonization, or built quasi-independent congregations, for example, black churchgoers spurred their white coreligionists to further develop the religious defense of slavery."

From what I can tell from the few book reviews that are available, the book has been very well received. For example, historian Mark Noll had this to say about the book:

"This exceedingly effective study pushes consideration of its complex subjects to unprecedented levels of insight. Irons argues that white-black interactions played the key role in shaping the antebellum evangelical defense of slavery. The argument, based on deep research and presented with meticulous care, is powerfully convincing."

In addition, Donald G. Mathews of the University of North Carolina stated:

"Unlike many scholars, Charles Irons takes seriously the interaction between black and white believers in the antebellum South. In this innovative and painstaking study, the author demonstrates how this interaction--flawed, agonistic, and paradoxical--played out within institutions where both races engaged each other. The result is an understanding of the ambiguity and irony that afflicted religion in the Old South, which was not the result of a simple story as much as stories in collision."

Sounds like an interesting take on a topic that is often lost in the muddle of early American religious studies. I hope it will be worth adding to my "to read" list.

Did Betsy Ross Create the First Flag?

2008-09-02T18:14:00.002-07:00

The contributions of women during the American Revolution (and in virtually every other era of history) have often been overlooked or obscured thanks in part to the chauvinistic trends of early historiography. Despite such trends, the occasional feminine hero has emerged from this hazy background to claim their rightful place alongside other fellow revolutionaries. Women like Abigail Adams, Dolly Madison and "Molly Pitcher" are remembered in countless paintings, monuments, and history books for their contributions to the "cause of liberty."

Arguably one of the most popular female figures of the American Revolution is Betsy Ross. In fact, the Betsy Ross House and Memorial in Philadelphia is one of the most visited tourist attractions in all of Philadelphia. We of course remember Ross as the original designer of the first American flag in 1776. In fact, the first American flag is rarely referred to as the "Flag of '76" but as the "Betsy Ross Flag."

As the legend states, Betsy Ross, who had recently lost her first husband in the war, received a visit from none other than General George Washington, who admonished Ross to create a banner of "thirteen stripes and thirteen stars." The stars were to be in a circular pattern, to symbolize the fact that, "no colony would be viewed above another." The legend goes on to state that as soon as George Washington's boots stepped out her front door, Betsy Ross set about making the first American flag.

So how true is this story?

Unfortunately there are little or no primary sources to prove or dispute the Betsy Ross story. In fact, the only evidence we have to defend the Betsy Ross story comes from Ross' grandson, William Canby. Ross supposedly related her story to Canby (who was eleven at the time) while on her deathbed. Canby then waited another 30 years before publicly announcing the story in a paper to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (click here to read a copy of Canby's paper). By then, roughly 100 years had passed since the alleged visit between General Washington and Betsy Ross.

Though the story cannot be 100% confirmed, it is important to remember that it also cannot be rejected. To be certain, Betsy Ross and her first husband had established a semi-successful upholstery business in Philadelphia. If George Washington had commissioned Ross to make the flag, perhaps he learned of her business while attending the Continental Congress. Skeptics argue that there is little likelihood that Washington would have visited Ross in 1776, due to the fact that he was extraordinarily busy with managing the Army.

Despite the controversy, Betsy Ross (and the flag she allegedly created) are likely to remain shrouded in mystery for generations to come. Perhaps the mystery is what makes the "Betsy Ross Flag" so intriguing. After all, the thought of a lonely and patriotic widow, bravely piecing together America's colors is as American as the treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence. But that's a story for another day.

A Faux Pas in Need of Correction

2008-09-02T18:14:00.001-07:00

So I was up a little early this morning (around 3:00 a.m.), unable to sleep due to the flu. As a means of relief, I turned on my television to one of the numerous cable news stations on my dial. As can be imagined, the only item of discussion was the presidential election between Obama and McCain. As I watched, half asleep from the cold medicine, I heard one of the news anchors proclaim that if John McCain wins the election, he will become the first and only president to have endured the agony of being a prisoner of war. I could hardly believe my ears. Even though John McCain is a genuine war hero of undisputed proportions, he will not become the first president to have been a P.O.W. That distinction belongs to none other than "Old Hickory" himself.

That's right folks, Andrew Jackson is (thus far) the only president to have also been a prisoner of war. One of the most forgotten facts about Andrew Jackson is that he fought in the American Revolution at the age of 14. He and his brother were wounded and captured by the British during a raid. It was Jackson's mother, Elizabeth, who freed him from captivity.

In fairness (and also so my conservative friends don't bite my head off) I should point out that on the very same night I heard MSNBC mention that our founding fathers, "established a national motto that revered and honored the name of God."

WRONG!

Though this is a popular thing to say in our modern era, the Founding Fathers never established a national motto to honor God. In fact, they removed a large number of references to deity in their official writings. As for their national motto, the Continental Congress settled on the phrase, "E Plubius Unum" meaning "From Many, One."

Don't you just love how right and left-wing nuts get history wrong!

Mapping American Religion

2008-09-01T10:51:00.001-07:00

How Social and Cultural Factors
Influence American Religion

In a posting from a few weeks back, I presented a map that was originally posted by my graduate professor, Paul Harvey of the Religion in American History blog, which provides a detailed breakdown of the geography of American religion:

As you can see, the map includes a tremendous amount of detail that illustrates the complex and diverse nature of America's religious landscape.

What struck me about this map was the fact that specific religious creeds are still largely defined by geography. Our modern day religious landscape still contains a number of similarities to the religious landscape of ages past. As we all know, the northern and southern colonies of the 17th and 18th centuries were quite different in their religious practices. And while there is no debating the fact that American religion has changed over the past two centuries, I am amazed at how big of a role geography still plays in determining our religious preferences.

One can't help but wonder how important of a role the social and cultural factors of a particular region play in determining the religion of a particular geographic area. Take for example this map of the United States prior to the Civil War:

Though there are a few specific differences with the map above, one can easily see some general trends. Clearly the southern and western parts of the United States have been able to maintain some of their cultural and social roots, which has had a profound impact on the religion of their respective region.

Even our voting trends are dramatically impacted by geography. The 2008 electoral map provides at least some general insight into how geography can shape our views:

And while there is no debating the fact that the electoral map changes depending on the issues and candidates of a given election, there is still no doubting that certain geographic areas of the country tend to vote Republican or Democrat based on the social and cultural views of their region.

As I write this, I am reminded of the groundbreaking and controversial work done by historian David Hackett Fischer in his book, Albion's Seed. In this book, Fischer essentially argues that the majority of our social and cultural norms can be dated back to the early British colonization of the "New World." According to Fischer, certain cultural beliefs, which differ from those of neighboring regions in the United States, were the direct result of a particular group of British immigrants, who brought with them their own unique social and cultural beliefs. As a result, these same unique beliefs sprung up in the New World, but were confined to specific geographic regions. As Fischer states:

By 1775 these...cultures were fully established in British America. They spoke distinctive dialects of English, built their houses in diverse ways, and had different methods of doing much of the ordinary business of life. Most important for the political history of the United States, they also had different conceptions of order, power, and freedom which became the cornerstones of a voluntary society in British America.

Today less than 20 percent of the American population have any British ancestors at all. But in a cultural sense most Americans are Albion's seed, no matter who their own forebearers may have been. Strong echoes of four British folkways may still be heard in the major dialects of American speech, in the regional patterns of American life, [and] in the complex dynamics of American life. (Pp. 6-7)

To these categories I would add that America's religious views are determined as well by the social and cultural beliefs of a particular region.

Though much of America's religious landscape has changes over the past 200 years, there is still strong evidence to argue that geography has been the principle determinant of our religious views throughout the course of our existence as a nation.

Joe Biden's Views on Church and State

2008-09-01T09:12:00.000-07:00

With all of the excitement surrounding the Republican and Democratic V.P. selections, I thought our readers might enjoy this. We have already seen a surge on the "blogosphere" with regards to the religious beliefs of the Republican V.P. candidate, Sarah Palin. It is likely that she will continue to be the focus of attention for the next week or so. As a result, I thought it might be beneficial to switch it up a bit.

The following comes to us from the personal blog of Melissa Rogers, which was linked to Ed Brayton's blog, Dispatches From the Culture Wars. It is an excellent summary of some of the public statements made by the Democratic V.P candidate, Joe Biden, in regards to his views on the separation of church and state, along with his overall opinion of religion in America. Enjoy:

In light of the big news of the day, I thought I'd post some excerpts from various statements and stories that reflect Senator Biden's views regarding religion's role in public life and church-state issues. Here are a few noteworthy excerpts:

From "The Fourth R: Conflicts Over Religion in American Public Schools" by Joan DelFattore (Yale University Press 2004):
At a 1995 Senate hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have re-introduced school-sponsored prayer, among other forms of state-endorsed and state-subsidized religion, Senator Orrin Hatch argued that] [t]he government should foster spirituality . . . as an antidote to moral decay. Biden replied, "The coin of religious freedom, we must never forget, has two sides."
America is one of the most religious nations on Earth, he maintained, precisely because the government has stayed out of religion. In his view, the issue before the Senate was not whether religion was good but whether all Americans, including religious minorities, would benefit from increased government involvement with it.
From The Christian Science Monitor (August 2007):
"The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power," he said in an interview with the Monitor. "It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse."
By the way, that statement helps shed some more light on an answer Biden gave at a Democratic presidential debate in September 2007 when he was asked what his favorite Bible verse was. (I thought this was a poor question for a presidential debate, by the way). Biden's answer to this question was: "Christ's warning of the Pharisees."
From the Associated Press (June 2006):
Calling the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks a greater shock to the American psyche than Pearl Harbor, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden said Saturday that Democrats must demonstrate they can provide for national security to win back the presidency. . .
"The next Democrat, whether it's me or Sen. Clinton or John Kerry, whomever -- the Democratic nominee -- they'd better be able to ante up right in front of the American people two things: security and faith," he said. . . .
Biden also criticized Democrats for their sometimes patronizing approach to religion, saying believers of different faiths don't expect everyone to join them. "They just want to know we respect them," he said. "If we can't negotiate the faith issue, forget it, we won't win."
From an October 2007 interview with The Chicago Tribune:
[Senator Joe Biden:] How was it that in '92 and in '96, Bill Clinton could get a majority of the Catholic vote, and 40 some percent of the Christian vote and 78 percent of the Jewish vote, and how was it that that Al Gore and John Kerry couldn't do that? Because I think Democrats have it wrong. They think in order to get that vote, you have to demonstrate you're born again, or you have to quote the bible or you're a religious person. I don't believe that. I think the reason why Bill Clinton won that vote even though they knew he wasn't a paragon of virtue--and Al Gore was--was because when Bill Clinton sat in that fundamentalist pew, that Catholic cathedral, that Jewish synagogue, the guy sitting next to him believed Bill Clinton respected him, and respected his views.
The Democratic Party has become elitist. At fundraisers with wealthy guys, they are uncomfortable when I say that. I say let me ask you a rhetorical question: Do you think it's possible for someone to go to a fundamentalist church tomorrow, make an altar call, profess he's born again, and have a high IQ? They all smile. The truth is we have communicated--the elite in our party have communicated--that we really don't respect that.
Now theres a reason for that. They are so angry about the polarization of religion by the Christian right that they've said any talk of religion is bad. Well, I think it's about respect and I don't think that we should shy away from counterpunching. Saying hey, wait a minute, you want to talk about values? I'm your guy. Let's talk about values.
I really believe with every fiber of my being the vast majority of Americans agree with us-- about how to treat children, about the elderly, about the whole issue about dealing with the environment. We act like these people in the red states oppose us? They don't!
From the Associated Press (August 2007):
Biden, a practicing Catholic, acknowledged that he rarely has talked about religion in his 34-year Senate career, but suggested that would change if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
Let me also add a quick summary of Senator Biden's record on some major church-state legislation that ultimately became law and some other church-state issues. Biden supported the Equal Access Act of 1984, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. As the first excerpt listed above indicates, Biden opposed the Istook amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution that was designed to reintroduce school-sponsored prayer and to allow other forms of government-endorsed and government-subsidized religion. The Istook amendment was defeated in 1998.
Biden criticized a court decision that held that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" violated the First Amendment. He has spoken against teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public school science classrooms, and he supported Clinton administration efforts to help public school officials, parents, and students to better understand religion's place in public schools under the First Amendment.

From a Christian Science Monitor piece on how Biden's faith informs his public work (August 2007):
"The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power," he said in an interview with the Monitor. "It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse."
The issues that have most engaged Biden in public life draw on those teachings, from halting violence against women to genocide. At a personal level, his faith provides him peace, he says. "I get comfort from carrying my rosary, going to mass every Sunday. It's my time alone," he says. . . .
But Biden believes he can bridge much of that divide. "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine," says Biden, a six-term Democratic senator from Delaware. "There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that.". . .
"My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world comes straight from my religion. It's not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It's the culture," he writes. . . .
Biden was one of the first Catholic politicians of the Vatican II generation. From 1962 to 1965, the Vatican Council II produced documents that opened the door to ecumenical dialogue, freedom of religion and conscience, and greater involvement of the laity in affairs of the church, including saying the mass in English and more emphasis on individual Bible study.
"I was raised at a time when the Catholic Church was fertile with new ideas and open discussion about some of the basic social teaching of the Catholic Church," Biden says. "Questioning was not criticized; it was encouraged."
"[A Catholic teacher] led me to see that if you cannot defend your faith to reason, then you have a problem," Biden says. . . .
On the Senate floor, the tough votes also came early and often. In his first term, Biden faced the first of many votes on whether to curtail abortion rights for women. As a freshman Democrat, he was approached by all sides. He told them that while he personally opposes abortion, he would not vote to overthrow the US Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the right to terminate a pregnancy. Nor, however, would he vote to use federal funds to fund abortion.
"I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society," he writes in his autobiography. . . .
"Joe Biden is one of the most sincere Catholics I've known in my 40 years as a priest," says Monsignor William Kerr, executive director of the Claude Pepper Center at Florida State University. The two men met by chance outside Biden's Senate office and began a conversation on faith and politics that has continued nearly 30 years. Monsignor Kerr recounts a conversation with Biden on Pope John Paul II's efforts to discourage President Bush from going to war in Iraq. He says that Biden told him: "I just have to tell you the pope's wrong on this, I'm going with the president. That was morality, this is politics."
Looking back on this decision, he writes, "I made a mistake." He had "vastly underestimated" the incompetence of the Bush administration in its conduct of the war. The "fantasy" of remaking Iraq in the US image was a goal that could not be imposed on a "fragile and decimated country," he writes in his new book. Instead, Biden proposes a partition of Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines to help restore security for Iraqis – and more robust international diplomacy to help sustain it.
Without taking a position on how Catholics should vote, Biden makes a case for staying connected to the church and its culture. "If I were an ordained priest, I'd be taking some issue with some of the more narrow interpretations of the Gospel being taken now," Biden says. "But my church is more than 2,000 years old. There's always been a tug of war among prelates and informed lay members."

Democratic Candidates on Religion, Denver Post (July 2007):
In 2005, Biden told The News Journal (Wilmington, Del.): "This is a nation founded on the idea of the separation of church and state. After 200 years, why the hell would you want to start messing with that?" Biden also stated that his religion is "part of my spirituality, part of my identity." However, Biden supports abortion rights and federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research, stances that run in opposition to those of his church.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), on separation of church and state:
"It was not written to prohibit the government's acknowledgementof God. In my opinion, the court's decision is dead wrong."
Joe Biden on teaching intelligent design in public science classes (The Hotline, August 2005):
Pres. Bush's comments last week "supporting the teaching of'intelligent design' alongside the theory of evolution in publicschool science classes has fueled concerns among some of thewall between religion" and gov't ";; could be breached. This is a nation founded on the idea of these paration of church and state. After 200 years, why the hell would you want to go messing with that?"
This is only a sample of the wonderful work done by Melissa Rogers. To read the entire piece, visit Melissa's blog here.

"What is it exactly that the V.P. does?"

2008-08-30T18:10:00.000-07:00

I wonder how much we will see of this clip in the coming weeks. Gotta love the knock-down, drag-out nature of politics!

The Best Candidate in 08

2008-08-29T18:10:00.000-07:00

Move aside, Obama. Get out of the way, McCain. Here is the person you ALL need to vote for:

http://www.inews3.com/play.php?first=Brad&last=Hart

Check it out!

An "Autobiography" of George Washington

2008-08-27T13:05:00.001-07:00

I am proud to announce here at American Creation that this posting will arguably be the most bizarre in the history of our blog. To be honest, when I first reviewed this particular book I was expecting something different. But after perusing a few of its pages I am now left completely at a loss for words.

The "Autobiography" of George Washington, which was published in 2006, was allegedly written by Edith Ellis, a semi-famous playwright and spiritualist, who claimed she was receiving periodic visitations from George Washington throughout the 1940s and 1950s. Ellis stated that she had been chosen to be the official scribe for the dead angel/general/president because of her “objectivity.” During their various "visits," Ellis stated that Washington would regularly comment on his displeasure for the current state of American society. As a result, the General decided to publish his autobiography to help inspire the wayward American populace. Plans backfired, however, when Ellis passed away in 1960. About 20 years later, another spiritualist named Caroline Myss published the book.

Needless to say, the book is filled with obvious historical errors and a number of bizarre claims. Perhaps General Washington went senile in the afterlife and forgot obvious specifics, or perhaps Ellis was prone to delusions of grandeur -- i.e. was a blatant liar. Whatever the case, the book is absolutely laughable.

One of the most ridiculous assertions made in the "autobiography" has to do with Washington's religion. Ellis stated that Washington's reserved nature had caused some to misunderstand his "true" religious beliefs. One of the "autobiography's" main goals was to set the record strait regarding the General’s religion. Here are a few of the words of Washington's "heavenly spirit" regarding his religious beliefs:

My blessed mother was the one to whom I went to say my prayers each night, while my brothers gathered with my father each morning. It may seem strange to you moderns that we had no food until we had gathered in a room and read a chapter from the Scriptures and knelt in prayer, asking for help to make the coming day a profitable one in mind, body, and soul.

And then during the war and his presidency, Washington's religion took the following form:

The calamities of war had taken their toll on the entire army. It was only because of the tender blessing of Christ, Jesus that we were not torn asunder. God's glorious providence and endless mercy kept the army through the worst of nights. As for myself, the only solace I could keep was Christ in my heart. His angels drew round about and kept me up when things were at their worst...

Martha was never fond of my service in the presidency...Her concerns were eventually set at ease when she came to the knowledge of God's divine plan...Having sworn an oath upon the Holy Book of our Lord, I set out to restore our nation's Christian heritage. It was ever present in my mind that the peace and prosperity of America was eternally indebted to the merciful master of heaven.

So if you are even in need of a good laugh, pick of a copy of An "Autobiography" of George Washington. I promise that it will bring a smile to your face even on your worst days!

The United States in the Bible

2008-08-27T13:04:00.001-07:00

Another Christian Nationalist uses the
Bible to prove America's "providential" destiny

Here is an interesting video I found while playing around on Godtube -- a priceless database for Christian zealotry. This particular video is one in a series entitled, The Prophesy Code, which expounds upon a number of alleged biblical prophesies regarding the last days. In this edition, Pastor Doug Batchelor, an evangelist of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, uses the Bible to explain the providential history and future of the United States.

Most of the biblical references that Batchelor cites come out of Revelation, which is not all that surprising since Revelation has been cited by most apocalyptic prophesy seekers. What is so surprising about Batchelor's understanding of biblical prophesy -- though he is certainly not alone in this respect -- is how much conjecture and innuendo he invokes when explaining the "prophesies" of the Bible and how they relate to the United States, etc.

One particular "prophesy" that I found interesting was that of the Catholic Church, which Batchelor proclaims to be "a great whore on many waters." To prove this belief, Batchelor points to Revelation 17 and how its verses allegedly declare the Catholic Church to be an abomination.

Batchelor's bizarre proclamation that the demise of the Catholic Church -- which he claims was the result of Napoleon Bonaparte -- would coincide with the rise of the United States is of particular interest. His interpretation of America's founding is full of typical Christian Nationalism, which he twists to support his biblical "prophesy." I especially enjoyed his assertion that the American colonists found a continent of "barren land" waiting for them to cultivate it. Obviously Batchelor is unaware of the millions of Native Americans who called this land home and were the unfortunate victims of disease, warfare, etc.

And then there is Batchelor's strange comparison of how the United States -- at least in our day -- will become a second Rome or Vatican of sorts. Batchelor preaches that the United States will somehow prevent open worship and will therefore, "speak as a dragon." Obviously Batchelor is appealing to the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that the Lord's Sabbath is Saturday, and that the United States will at some future date prevent worship on that day.

Anyway, here is the video. It is a real "gem" so enjoy!

John Adams Political Ad

2008-08-23T11:51:00.000-07:00

Here is a funny youtube clip on the Adams/Jefferson presidential campaign of 1800.

For most of the "campaign" 0f 1800 -- not really a campaign in the way we think of campaigns today -- Jefferson was labeled an atheist, rebel, etc. by the Adams people. One of the major reasons for such labels was due to the fact that Adams' supporters pounced upon some unpopular statements made by Jefferson on the issue of religion. The most popular statement that was scrutinized was from Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, in which he stated:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Anyway, here is the anti-Jefferson video Enjoy!

American Exodus and Providentialism: A Different Perspective

2008-08-19T14:28:00.000-07:00

Absalom Jones and the
Thanksgiving Sermon of 1808

As fellow contributor, Ray Soller has effectively pointed out in his most recent post, a large number of American colonists, thanks in part to the sermons of their various preachers, began to think of their subjugation to British rule as equal to that of the ancient children of Israel during their enslavement in Egypt. For the pious Puritans, the "American Exodus" to the "New World" essentially brought with it a "deliverance" that equaled that of Moses in biblical times. John Winthrop's proclamation of Massachusetts Bay as a "shining city on a hill" was certainly reminiscent of America as a second Jerusalem of sorts. With the arrival of the American Revolution, this doctrine was taken to the next level, as American providentialism began to emerge as God's one and only true beacon of hope in the eyes of many American colonists.

While there is no debating the profound impact that these statements made on the American populace, it is important for us to remember that American providentialism was seen in a very different light by the countless numbers of African slaves, who gained neither freedom nor deliverance as a result of the American Revolution. Instead, African slaves were forced to continue in their existence as chattel labor, with little more than a faint hope for a future "exodus" from bondage.

Such an exodus of sorts was met in 1808 when the Constitution, after its twenty-year sanctioning of the slave trade expired, making the importation of slaves to the United States illegal. In particular, one former slave-turned-preacher was able to capture the exhilaration of the occasion in his January 1808 sermon he entitled, A Thanksgiving Sermon. Absalom Jones, a former Philadelphia slave who was eventually able to purchase freedom for both himself and his wife, had emerged in the latter part of the eighteenth-century as one of Philadelphia's finest Black preachers. Following the segregation of Black churches in Philadelphia in 1786, Jones founded St. Thomas African Episcopal Church, which emerged as the most powerful Black congregation in the state.

In this particular sermon, Jones points to a particular brand of providentialism, which was completely unique from the rest of the American citizenry. In this brand of providentialism, Jones proclaims the exodus of his African brothers and sisters from the chains of slavery as equal to that of the children of Israel during the time of Moses:

The history of the world shows us, that the deliverance of the children of Israel from their bondage, is not the only instance, in which it has pleased God to appear in behalf of oppressed and distressed nations, as the deliverer of the innocent, and of those who call upon his name. He is as unchangeable in his nature and character, as he is in his wisdom and power...And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their task-masters; for I know their sorrows; and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians.

As opposed to America's providential destiny, which placed Great Britain in the role of evil oppressor and the colonists as subjugated slaves, Jones' sermon appropriately casts the American and British citizenry in the role of the oppressive Egyptians of biblical times:

Our God has seen masters and mistresses, educated in fashionable life, sometimes take the instruments of torture into their own hands, and, deaf to the cries and shrieks of their agonizing slaves, exceed even their overseers in cruelty. Inhuman wretches! though You have been deaf to their cries and shrieks, they have been heard in Heaven. The ears of Jehovah have been constantly open to them: He has heard the prayers that have ascended from the hearts of his people; and he has, as in the case of his ancient and chosen people the Jews, come down to deliver our suffering country-men from the hands of their oppressors. He came down into the United States, when they declared, in the constitution which they framed in 1788, that the trade in our African fellow-men, should cease in the year 1808: He came down into the British Parliament, when they passed a law to put an end to the same iniquitous trade in May, 1807...

Dear land of our ancestors! thou shalt no more be stained with the blood of thy children, shed by British and American hands: the ocean shall no more afford a refuge to their bodies, from impending slavery: nor shall the shores of the British West India islands, and of the United States, any more witness the anguish of families, parted for ever by a publick sale.

After successfully expounding upon the plight of his fellow brethren, Reverend Jones goes on to plead to God for further emancipation and to exhort his congregation to humbly submit to the laws of God, as was done in the days of the Jews:

The Jews, after they entered the promised land, were commanded, when they offered sacrifices to the Lord, never to forget their humble origin; and hence, part of the worship that accompanied their sacrifices consisted in acknowledging, that a Syrian, ready to perish, was their father: in like manner, it becomes us, publickly and privately, to acknowledge, that an African slave, ready to perish, was our father or our grandfather. Let our conduct be regulated by the precepts of the gospel; let us be sober minded, humble, peaceable, temperate in our meats and drinks, frugal in our apparel and in the furniture of our houses, industrious in our occupations, just in all our dealings, and ever ready to honour all men. Let us teach our children the rudiments of the English language, in order to enable them to ac-quire a knowledge of useful trades; and, above all things, let us instruct them in the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, whereby they may become wise unto salvation.

Interestingly enough, Jones then concludes his sermon by petitioning God in prayer for the further blessings of the very nation that has enslaved his African kindred. Certainly this serves as evidence of the fact that a number of Africans, despite their terribly oppressive circumstances, were beginning to embrace an American providential destiny, which was inclusive of much more that European Whites:

We pray, O God, for all our friends and benefactors, in Great Britain, as well as in the United States: reward them, we beseech thee, with blessings upon earth...We implore thy blessing, O God, upon the President, and all who are in authority in the United States. Direct them by thy wisdom, in all their deliberations.

With the fires of revolution still burring hot in the memories of most, former slaves like Absalom Jones and others seized the opportunity to ensure that their voices were heard as well. Though slavery would continue for several more decades, the African American view of American providentialism would continue to evolve and grow. And while many particular components of this providentialism differed from the mainstream beliefs regarding America's Godly destiny, the "American Exodus" of African slaves became an invaluable component that would continue to influence the abolitionist movements into the nineteenth-century.

Revisiting Salem: Part II

2008-08-17T22:29:00.001-07:00

The Geography of Witchcraft

For the second installment -- and 200th posting for American Creation, BTW -- in my series on the Salem Witch Trials, I have decided to look at the geography of seventeenth-century Salem, which has become the centerpiece in William and Mary Quarterly’s July, 2008 review of the Salem historical record. To be more specific, it is Professor Benjamin C. Ray’s article entitled, The Geography of Witchcraft Accusations in 1692 Salem Village that has caught my attention.

In this particular article, Prof. Ray challenges some of the status quo interpretations of the Salem geographical record, and in particular questions the validity of the analysis offered by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum in their groundbreaking book, Salem Possessed. [1] As Prof. Ray points out, the most significant source for Boyer and Nissenbaum’s work was the 1867 book by Charles W. Upham, Salem Witchcraft, which included a detailed map of virtually all the households in Salem Village. [2] With this map, Boyer and Nissenbaum endeavored to demonstrate how specific geographic locations within Salem Village -- based primarily on economic and social differences -- led to the factionalism that ultimately divided Salem on the witchcraft issue. For roughly thirty years, Boyer and Nissenbaum’s work has served as the standard interpretation of the Salem Story.

In recent years, however, a number of scholars have come forward to challenge the interpretation offered in Salem Possessed. In 2002, renowned historian Mary Beth Norton published her book, In The Devil’s Snare, which served to challenge some of the assertions made by Boyer and Nissenbaum. As Norton states in the introduction of her book:

The influential "Salem Possessed" (1974), by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, attributes the crisis to long-standing political, economic, and religious discord among men of Salem Village, denying the significance of women’s prominence as both accused and accuser…In the Devil’s Snare contends that the dramatic events of 1692 can be fully understood only by viewing them as intricately related to concurrent political and military affairs in northern New England. [3]

In addition to Norton’s assertions, Prof. Ray points out that the traditional interpretation of the Upham map by Boyer and Nissenbaum is incomplete:

Contrary to Boyer and Nissenbaum’s conclusions in "Salem Possessed," geographic analysis of the accusations in the village shows there was no significant villagewide east-west division between accusers and accused in 1692. Nor was there an east-west divide between households of different economic status…

…Though is may appear that the "Salem Possessed" map carries the burden of the argument about the socioeconomic and geographic foundation of the witchcraft accusations, the map does not supply all the evidence…a total of thirteen accusers were omitted, this indicating that the map is incomplete and does not represent all the accusers. [4]

Prof. Ray continues his argument by pointing out the inherently complex nature of geographical data. In his analysis, Ray claims that the map data included in Salem Possessed was conveniently construed to fit Boyer and Nissenbaum’s claims:

Boyer and Nissenbaum placed an all-important east-west demarcation line at the center of their map without explaining its precise location. The lack of explanation is curious because positioning the line slightly to the west would have made a significant difference in the crowded center of the map, shifting several As (a marker used to identify the accused) to the eastern side of the village. [5]

The rest of Prof. Ray’s article goes on to point out various omissions made by Boyer and Nissenbaum in their interpretation of the Upham map. In addition, the article argues that a geographical interpretation that seeks to divide Salem Village socially or economically is inherently too restrictive, and that future inquiry “needs to be set as free of interpretive assumptions as possible if scholars are to have a solid geographic foundation for further historical research.” [6]

Though truly a pioneering work that defined the historiography of the Salem Witch Trials for decades, Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum’s Salem Possessed should at least be seen as an incomplete take on the Salem saga.

Notes:
[1] Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, Mass., 1974).

[2] Charles Upham, Salem Witchcraft: With an Account of Salem Village and a History of Opinions on Witchcraft and Kindred Subjects, 2 vols. (Boston, Mass., 1867).

[3] Mary Beth Norton, In the Devil’s Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692 (New York, 2002), 4-5.

[4] Benjamin C. Ray, “The Geography of Witchcraft Accusations in 1692 Salem Village,” in The William and Mary Quarterly, vol, LXV, no. 3, (July, 2008), 453.

[5] Ibid, 456.

[6] Ibid, 478.

"Christian Nation" Doctrine Actually Trumps Democracy

2008-08-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

While perusing the Internet, I stumbled upon a website that I am sure some of you are already familiar with. I think it deserves special mention here on this blog because it is a great illustration of how distorted and dangerous the Christian Nationalist agenda can become. The website, entitled, Is America a Christian Nation, is dedicated to the mainstream Christian founding myth -- i.e. America was established by devout orthodox Christians, over the years we have lost our way and forgotten our heritage, but we can and will bring back our Christian roots.

Like most pro-Christian nation websites, this page claims to present concrete evidence that gives 100% proof of America's Christian founding. Right from the start, the website points to the 1892 Supreme Court case, Holy Trinity Church v. The United States, which this website's author believes is ample proof of America's Christian heritage. However, the author neglects to mention the fact that this case had absolutely NOTHING to do with establishing America as a Christian nation. In fact, the case actually dealt with the issue of, "the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia." In the course of the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Brewer used the case to promote HIS belief that the United States was established as a Christian nation. As Justice Brewer stated:

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Legal historians, however, point to the fact that Justice Brewer's "Christian nation" comments occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement that sets legally binding precedent.

Unfortunately, the author of Is America a Christian Nation does not understand the concept of legal dicta, nor does he/she understand how to put historical data into context. As the author ignorantly points out:

The Court did not merely say that most people in America were Christian, or that there were no Muslims or Hindus in America. According to the author of the Court's unanimous opinion, the Court's claim that America "is a Christian nation" is in "the domain of official action and recognition," not mere "individual acceptance." The Court demonstrates that our entire system of government was created with a duty to acknowledge the authority of the God of the Christian Bible, and to obey His commandments, by Christians who acknowledged the authority of God and were committed to obey His commandments [and] intended the government they created to acknowledge and obey God.

It is also important to point out that Holy Trinity v. United States was actually overruled in 1931 by U.S. v. Macintosh, which stated:

Whereas in Holy Trinity v. U.S., the Court held that because this was a Christian nation, all laws were qualified by a higher law, and no law could be interpreted in such a way as to exclude a Christian minister from entering the United States, the Macintosh Court, fully cognizant of the rule in Holy Trinity, completely reverses the rule, refuses to place the nation "under God," and instead declares that the State-as-god is owed "unqualified allegiance."

For obvious reasons, the author of Is America A Christian Nation neglected to mention much about this little tidbit of history!

Another bizarre source that Is America A Christian Nation sites has to do with the 17th century settlement of America by the Pilgrims. On the web page, the author states:

From its earliest founding in the 1600's, each American colony was a Christian Theocracy. "Theocracy" means "ruled by God," not "ruled by priests." A nation "under God" is a "Theocracy" by definition. There was universal agreement that the formation of civil government was a religious/Christian/Biblical obligation. All governments were Theocratic. Governments were formed because it was believed God in the Bible commanded human beings to form them. The founding of a government was a religious act. Under the new federal government which began under the U.S. Constitution on March 4, 1789, the United States were Christian Theocracies. The U.S. Constitution would never have been ratified if it gave power to the newly-created federal government to prevent the United States from being "under God" and officially and legally acknowledging themselves to be under His jurisdiction.

Not only is this bold proclamation utterly wrong, but it is also a potentially dangerous mode of thinking, as evidenced by the author's following statement:

American liberals HATE the word "theocracy." All you have to do to discredit an idea is accuse it of being connected in some way with "theocracy."

"Theocracy" literally means "ruled by God." It has nothing to do with priests. America was supposed to be a nation "under God." If America is under God, then God is over America. That's the literal meaning of "theocracy."

The mainstream media use "theocracy" as a scare word. They want you to think of Osama bin Laden instead of Jesus Christ. They want you to think of "tyranny under god" rather than Liberty Under God. Many writers who deny America's Christian history attempt to confuse you with caricatures of intolerant right-wing religious tyrants.

So, what is so unsettling about the author's claims? Think about it. He/she is actually insinuating that the United States is NOT a democracy, but is instead a Christian Theocracy. Of course the author neglects to mention which Christian God we are under. Is it the God of the Catholics? Protestants? Mormons?

What is most unsettling about this argument is the fact that free speech/will is utterly denied. Under the Theocratic government suggested by this author, God has the final say in all issues. There is no room for individual debate. The Bible becomes the final judge and governing document, not the Constitution.

As a devout Christian myself, I understand the desire that exists for God to be a fundamental part of society. However, as we have learned through thousands of years of world history, a large number of Theocratic governments end up being the most intolerant, brutal, undemocratic and destructive regimes. Or as Thomas Jefferson put it:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.

For a Christian Nationalist to suggest that America is not a Democracy but instead a Theocracy should immediately cause us to raise our red warning flags and sound the alarm.

Revisiting Salem: Part I

2008-08-12T17:03:00.000-07:00

Over the past week I have had the wonderful opportunity of delving into the July, 2008 issue of the William and Mary Quarterly, which is almost exclusively dedicated to a reexamination of the Salem Witch Trials. Though the history surrounding Salem during the latter part of the 17th century has received an incredible amount of attention, I believe that anytime the “flagship” journal of early American history decides to revisit a topic, we would all do well to follow suit. With this in mind, I hope to dedicate the next three or four of my posts on this blog to a review of the Salem historical record and the assessment offered by various historians on this topic in the WMQ.

As mentioned before, the history surrounding the Salem Witch Trials is one of the more popular events in all of American colonial history. Literally hundreds of books and articles have been written over the centuries, making 17th century Salem one of the most publicized events in our nation’s past. While this overabundance of scholarly literature may discourage some historians from engaging in a revision of the Salem saga, other devout students of early American history remain undeterred. As historian Richard Latner of Tulane University states:

The 1692 Salem witchcraft outbreak has had an enduring capacity for attracting popular and scholarly attention…Richly complex and layered, it is continuously amenable to fresh investigation. Thus, though the harvest of books and articles on Salem may deter researchers from this well-trodden terrain, ample rewards may result not only from formulating new interpretations but also from reexamining prevailing conceptualizations. [1]

It is this fresh perspective, a desire to challenge the traditional historiography of the Salem story, that demands our attention. For too long Salem and its witchcraft legacy have been oversimplified to the point that its participants are hardly recognized. The traditional Salem scholarship of the past, most of which portrays the witchcraft “outbreak” as a virtual plague centered in the Puritan “age of superstition,” causes us to see these early Puritans as quasi-madmen, bent on eradicating even the smallest trace of witchcraft.

In Richard Latner’s analysis of Salem, however, we are presented with a colonial society deeply divided by factionalism. During the 1690s, Salem was a community immersed in transition. The traditional covenant community based exclusively on a subsistence agricultural system was rapidly being replaced with the emerging forces of merchant capitalism. As a result, Salem’s population was thrown into a world of economic instability and transition. As Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum point out in their groundbreaking book, Salem Possessed, “the prosaic, everyday lives of obscure and inarticulate men and women…were being shaped by powerful forces of historical and economic change.” [2]

Due in part to these economic changes, the poorer segments of the Salem population found themselves in a state of financial instability. In addition, the ecclesiastical leaders of Salem, still awaiting a new royal charter from England, began to see their authority erode from underneath their feet. The increased level of factionalism between Salem Town and Salem Village – which had remained divided for decades – began to coalesce into rival economic segments of society. Contrary to popular belief, it was the witch-hunters, not the common citizen that were “in retreat” from the “oppressive” advances of those in Salem Town, where merchant capitalism was at its strongest.[3]

It was this internal division, argues Richard Latner that helped to create an atmosphere in which witchcraft accusations could flourish. The initial accusation of Reverend Samuel Parris’ daughter and niece are perfect case studies of how factionalism played out during the witch-hunt fiasco. The accusers, mostly consisting of paranoid clergymen bent on regaining their authority, preyed upon the economic plight of the poorer segment within Salem Village. As a result of their efforts, the overzealous clergy of Salem Town found all the support they would need to levy their accusations of witchcraft. As Christine Alice Young points out:

The powers of witches, were associated with mercantile activity within Salem Town, not the agricultural hinterland of Salem Village…it was impossible in seventeenth-century Massachusetts to simultaneously be a merchant and a leader of the orthodox, anticommercial party in colonial politics. [4]

With the backing of the economically downtrodden, Salem became a haven for radical accusation and religious over zealotry. The opposition, most of which was centered in Salem Town, found themselves virtually helpless against the “brainwashed” – intolerant is probably a more appropriate label -- masses of Salem Village.

While Latner’s economic explanations for Salem’s transgressions are convincing, it is important to remember that economics is but one of many factors that led to the witchcraft accusations of 17th century Salem. In the next few days, I hope to provide additional perspectives, the majority coming from the most recent edition of the William and Mary Quarterly, which I hope will provide an overall historical "landscape" of the Salem saga.

Notes:
[1] Richard Latner, “Salem Witchcraft, Factionalism, and Social Change Reconsidered: Were Salem’s Witch-Hunters Modernization’s Failures?” William and Mary Quarterly, vol. LXV, no. 3, Pp. 423.
[2] Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), xii.
[3] Ibid, 425-426.
[4] Christine Alice Young, Good Order to Glorious Revolution: Salem, Massachusetts, 1628-1689 (Ann Arbor, Mi., 1980), 7.

James Otis: Forgotten Founder and Abolitionist

2008-08-12T11:31:00.000-07:00

Remembering the American Revolution is often done from the perspective of valiant patriots on the battlefield, exerting themselves for the "Glorious Cause" of independence. Our sense of national pride often comes from these heroic stories of fearless soldiers, holding steadfast against the mighty arm of the British Army. Rarely if ever are the contributions of peaceful protesters remembered. As a result, we often forget the "American Revolution" of the common citizen.

Such is the case with James Otis. Though not a common citizen, Otis' legacy is often shrouded by the contributions of those that fought in the ranks of the Continental Army. Otis was not a warrior. He never fought for independence (in fact, Otis was quite reluctant to break from Great Britain). Yet Otis was undoubtedly one of the first influential voices of the American Revolution. Aside from his protests against the British, Otis was also a powerful voice against slavery (which is often a forgotten part of his legacy). Throughout his life, Otis wrote some stirring arguments against slavery, most of which were very unpopular in 18th century America. In a 1764 pamphlet Otis wrote:

Does it follow that 'tis right to enslave a man because he is black? Will short curled hair like wool instead of Christian hair, as tis called by those whose hearts are as hard as the nether millstone, help the argument? Can any logical inference in favor of slavery be drawn from a flat nose, a long or a short face? Nothing better can be said in favor of a trade that is the most shocking violation of the law of nature, has a direct tendency to diminish the idea of the inestimable value of liberty, and makes every dealer in it a tyrant, from the director of an African company to the petty chapman in needles and pins on the unhappy coast. It is a clear truth that those who every day barter away other men's liberty will soon care little for their own.

John Adams recalled Otis speaking against slavery even earlier, during his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761. Adams recalled the moment this way:

He asserted that these rights were inherent and inalienable. That they never could be surrendered or alienated but by idiots or madmen and all the acts of idiots and lunatics were void and not obligatory, by all the laws of God and man. Nor were the poor Negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia or Mr. Jefferson in Virginia ever asserted the rights of Negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was and ignorant as I was, I shuddered at the doctrine he taught...

Remembering Otis as a pioneer for the later abolitionists should not be forgotten. When dressed in this light, Otis' legacy and contributions become every bit as important as those of the men that fought on the battlefield.

Radio Talk Show Host Gets Destroyed

2008-08-09T09:08:00.000-07:00

This is a pretty funny video. Regardless of your political leanings, it is always funny to see a political "expert" get it handed to him. Kevin James is still trying to get his foot out of his mouth after this encounter! Further proof that radio talk show hosts are just a bunch of arrogant, loud mouth shock jocks. The video picks up around 3:00 in. Enjoy!

Historian Gary Nash on "Conservative Culture-Warriors"

2008-08-08T14:07:00.001-07:00

Historian Gary Nash of UCLA is not only one of the most respected historians on early American history, but has also received praise for the fact that his scholarship has breathed new life into America's sense of historical appreciation. In recent years, Nash's work has challenged many of the traditional assumptions surrounding America' founding. Everything from the role of slavery and women to the influence of religion on America's 18th century revolution has been a part of Nash's "assault" on traditional early American historiography.

In his most recent book, The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America, Nash challenges the idea that the American Revolution was merely a conflict between rival elites in Britain and America. Instead, Nash boldly proclaims the revolution as being inspired and led by the masses.

In addition, Nash challenges a number of the beliefs held by Christian Nationalists in regards to America's founding. Nash proclaims America's establishment and success as being the result of enlightened secularist ideology, which caused the American populace to challenge the social, political and religious norms of their day. In so doing, America became not a "Christian" government but a secular institution, which sought to keep religion and government separate from one another.

Naturally, the scholarship of Gary Nash does not sit well with hard-core Christian apologists such as David Barton and others. In response, Christian zealots have sought to label historians like Nash as being "unpatriotic" or as "secular revisionists" that are bent on eliminating any and all remnants of America's "Christian heritage."

Gary Nash was not ignorant of the fact that his work would stir up hostilities. In his introduction, Nash addresses his critics by writing the following:

When historians fix their gaze downward or write a warts-and-all American history, they often offend people who cherish what they remember as a more coherent, worshipful, and supposedly annealing rendition of the past. In the history of the 1990s, many conservative-culture warriors called historians offering new interpretations of the American Revolution – or any other part of American history – “history bandits,” “history pirates,” or, sneeringly, “revisionists” intent on kidnapping history with no respect for a dignified rendition of the past. Yet the explosion of historical knowledge has invigorated history and increased its popularity...

Unsurprisingly, those of the old school do not like to hear the question "whose history?" It is unsettling for them to see the intellectual property of the American Revolution, once firmly in the hands of a smaller and more homogeneous historians' guild, taken out of their safe boxes, put on the table, and redivided. Yet what could be more democratic than to reopen questions about the Revolution's sources, conduct, and results? And what is the lasting value of a "coherent" history if the coherence is obtained by eliminating the jagged edges, where much of the vitality of the people is to be found? How can we expect people to think of the American Revolution as their own when they can see no trace of their forbears in it?

Then Nash puts the smack down on those who favor a "traditional" interpretation of the American Revolution as being exclusively a conflict of the elite:

A history of inclusion has another claim to make. Only a history that gives play to all the constituent parts of society can overcome the defeatist notion that the past was inevitably determined...Honest history can impart a sense of how the lone individual counts, how the possibilities of choice are infinite, how human capacity for both good and evil is ever present, and how dreams of a better society are in the hands of the dispossessed as much as in the possession of the putative brokers of our society's future.

If this is "secular revisionism," or "historical piracy" then count me in!

Aliens Amongst Us? Where Are the Men In Black???

2008-08-08T10:40:00.000-07:00

Former astronaut and renowned astronomer, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon during the Apollo 14 mission, has some interesting things to say about ALIENS visiting Earth. I have no idea what to think of this, but it is interesting nonetheless. Enjoy!

Very Interesting Map of American Religion

2008-08-06T13:43:00.000-07:00

Dr. Paul Harvey, who is one of my graduate professors, recently posted a very interesting map on his website, Religion in American History. The map breaks down by county where different denominations are strongest. Very interesting to look at.

Colonial Williamsburg and Christian Zealots

2008-08-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

Historian John Fea of the Religion in American History blog has posted a brief synopsis of a recent trip that he took to Colonial Williamsburg. In the post, Fea discusses how the "national treasure" that is colonial Williamsburg has endeavored to portray the religious heritage of America's founding in their re-enactments. As Fea states:

I noticed that the re-enactors (particularly George Washington) made a lot of references to "God" and "Providence" in their speeches. (I did not hear "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" mentioned). This, I think, is an accurate reflection of how Washington would have spoken, but I wonder how much pressure the "powers that be" at CW have received from the large number of conservative evangelicals and "Christian America" types who may have petitioned for more religious language. While I can't verify this, I have heard that the administration at Williamsburg have tried to address this issue...

...the stock of colonial and revolutionary history at the Williamsburg Book Sellers (located in the CW Visitors Center) is quite impressive. They had a nice section on early American religion, which included both scholarly and popular treatments of the era. The closest thing they had to "Christian America" literature was Peter Lillback's George Washington's Sacred Fire, an extended argument for Washington's Christianity...

...the National Park Service has a monument to Rev. Robert Hunt, the first Anglican who dedicated the settlement to the glory of God. There is also a huge cross behind the fort, a symbol of the original Anglican presence in Jamestown. Both of these religious displays played an important role in last year's 400th anniversary celebrations sponsored by Pat Robertson and a Christian America organization called Providence Forum.

For the most part, it sounds like Colonial Williamsburg has been able to effectively avoid the Christian Nationalist onslaught. Only time will tell if they can maintain such a position.

Trip to New Mexico

2008-07-29T09:07:00.000-07:00

This past week our family took a trip to New Mexico to see Elizabeth's sister. During the trip we had the opportunity to visit a number of historical sites that were quite impressive to say the least. Here are a few pictures from our trip:

Our first stop was in Santa Fe, which as many of you know is the second oldest city in the United States (behind St. Augustine, Florida). Spanish Conquistadors, along with Catholic priests, first began settling in the area in 1598. The city of Santa Fe was officially settled in 1607. For the Spanish, one of the official reasons for settling the "New World" was to convert the "savage" Indians of the American continent to their brand of Christianity. To accomplish this, Spanish Conquistadors resorted to a number of brutal practices, which "persuaded" a large percentage of Native Americans to convert to Christianity. One of the many tribes that chose to convert were the Tlaxcalan Indians of Mexico, who were descendants of the Aztecs. After their conversion to Christianity, the Spanish enslaved the Tlaxcalans and sent them north to Santa Fe, where they began the construction of a church in 1598. Here are a few pictures of that church:

Welcome sign at the front of the church. The San Miguel Church is the oldest surviving church in the United States.
A View of the church from across the street.
This picture was taken from the very back of the church and gives the best perspective on the church's overall size.
The tapestry in the center was done by the Tlaxcalan Indians in the early 1600s. The church decided to leave it as it was hanging on the wall.
This is the original mural that was restored in the 1980s. It sits behind the altar.
Some additional art done by the Tlaxcalan Indians.
Here is a cutout on the floor of the church that shows where the original Indian holy mount was once located. Archaeologists estimate that the holy mount was built in 1300.

Roughly one block from the San Miguel Church is another historical church called the Loretto Chapel. Built in 1878, the Loretto Chapel is home to what many have called, "The Miracle Staircase." Upon the church's completion, builders realized that they had not provided a means for the parishioners to access the chapel's second story choir loft, which was twenty-two feet above the chapel's main floor. Legend says that to find a solution to the seating problem, the Sisters of the Chapel made a novena to St. Joseph, the patron saint of carpenters. On the ninth and final day of prayer, a man appeared at the chapel with a donkey and a toolbox looking for work. Months later, the elegant circular staircase was completed, and the carpenter disappeared without pay or thanks. After searching for the man (an ad even ran in the local newspaper) and finding no trace of him, some concluded that he was St. Joseph himself, having come in answer to the sisters' prayers.

What is so amazing about this particular staircase is that it was completely made by hand and has absolutely NO supports holding it in place. There are no beams or rods of any kind to support the staircase. Don't believe me? See for yourself. Here are a few pictures of the Loretto Chapel:

Here are a couple of pictures of the chapel's altar. The attention to detail is incredible! I wish my pictures could do it justice.

Some additional art that adorns the side of the chapel.
A view of the Loretto Chapel from the very back. This perspective allows you to see the overall size of the building.
And as mentioned before, here is the "Miracle Staircase."

This is a view of the chapel from the altar. Though the picture came out a little dark, you can still see the staircase on the left leading up to the second floor.

After spending most of our first day in Santa Fe, we made our way up the mountains of New Mexico to the "City That Never Was," Los Alamos, New Mexico. As many of you already know, Los Alamos was created as a secret military/scientific outpost during the height of WWII. Some of the world's best scientists gathered at Los Alamos to continue work on what President Franklin D. Roosevelt had dubbed, "The Manhattan Project." As a result of their efforts, the United States was able to develop the first atomic bombs, which were subsequently used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here are some pictures from our visit to Los Alamos:

Here we are at the Bradbury Science Museum, which houses a number of artifacts from the Manhattan Project years. In addition, the museum explains some of what the Los Alamos National Lab is currently working on -- though most of it is top secret.

Here is a replica of "The Gadget," which was the first atomic bomb ever tested. Obviously the real "gadget" was much larger.
A bust of Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, who headed up the research at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project years.
A replica of "Fat Man," the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.
A replica of "Little Boy," the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
A model of the underground device that was used for nuclear testing in the deserts of Nevada during most of the Cold War.

And here are some BORING family pictures:

The family on a hike in Los Alamos. Surprisingly, New Mexico has some beautiful terrain.
Elizabeth and her sister, Margret
The Tonks family.

Thomas Jefferson on the Bible in School

2008-07-23T10:42:00.001-07:00

We’ve all heard it said that our founding fathers would be appalled at the fact that religion – particularly the Bible and other Christian teachings -- has been removed from the public school system’s curriculum. As a result, a number of Christian enthusiasts have fought tirelessly for the inclusion of prayers in school, classes on the Bible, etc. To lend support for these causes, a number of Christian apologists have appealed to the legacy of our founding fathers and their alleged loyalty to the Holy Scriptures. The ultra conservative Christian group, Wallbuilders, is a perfect example of this phenomenon. On their website, they point to the establishment of the American Bible Society as evidence that our nation’s founding was based on biblical doctrine. In addition, Wallbuilders makes the claim that, “the signers of the Declaration of Independence firmly believed in the Bible as the primary text in America’s schools.” [1]

While there were a number of signers to the Declaration of Independence that believed in making the Bible the premiere text for American schools, a larger number were against such an idea. After all, the teaching of the Bible in a school setting brought up a number of Church/State issues that have continued to our present day.

The foremost advocate against the use of the Bible – as many of you can easily imagine – was none other than the Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson. As we all know, Jefferson was a passionate proponent for religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In addition, Jefferson was also a devout supporter of educational reform. Jefferson believed that a secularized education, free from the shackles of religious piety would create a superior learning environment. It was largely due to this conviction that Jefferson established Mr. Jefferson’s University, or the University of Virginia as it is known today.

For Jefferson, the instruction of biblical or Christian doctrine took a back seat to the more important lessons of ancient history and philosophy. As Jefferson stated:

“Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history.” [2]
A number of Christian apologists – David Barton in particular – have insisted that Jefferson not only supported the study of the Bible in public schools, but in fact participated in its teaching. This myth is not only the result of over enthusiasm, but also the result of poor historical research and knowledge. As Jim Allison states:

"On page 130 in his The Myth of Separation, David Barton makes the following claim:

'Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom. Notice why Jefferson felt the Bible to be essential in any successful plan of education: I have always said, always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.'

Barton's reference for Jefferson's service on the Washington D. C. school board is J. O. Wilson, "Eighty Years of Public Schools of Washington," in the Records of the Columbia Historical Society, vol. 1, 1897, pp. 122-127. Barton's quotation from Jefferson is taken from Herbert Lockyear, The Last Words of Saints and Sinners, 1969.

Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was president of the board for a school system that used the Bible for reading instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this manner. In fact, some readers of this web site have claimed in their e-mail correspondence with us that Jefferson requested the Bible to be used for reading instruction. But nothing in Barton's source supports either of these claims. In fact, Barton's source suggests that someone other than Jefferson was responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and that this policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:

On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as President of the United States, the board of trustees of the Washington D. C. public schools adopted its first plan for public education for the city. Given its resemblance to a similar plan proposed several years earlier by Jefferson for the state of Virginia, Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that it is likely that "he [Jefferson] himself was the chief author of the...plan." The plan called for the establishment of two public schools in
which:

...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography and in the Latin language.

As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor, we might add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for public education in the state of Virginia, either before or after his presidency (check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side for documentation on this point). There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to the practice of Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in the Washington public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source provides an answer to that question." [3]

Notes:
[1] Wallbuilders. “The Aitken Bible.” http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=46, accessed July 23, 2008.
[2] Thomas Jefferson. The Administration of Laws and the Description of Laws?
[3] Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading. By Jim Allison. http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg6.htm

"America The Beautiful" on "America's Mountain"

2008-07-19T14:12:00.001-07:00

O beautiful, for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!

O beautiful, for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!

O beautiful, for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!

O beautiful, for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years,
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!

America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea!

These eloquent and patriotic words to the now infamous song, America The Beautiful have captivated the heart and soul of an entire nation. Written in 1893 by English professor Katharine Lee Bates, the song has actually been considered on numerous occasions to be a replacement to our current national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner. But do you know the origins of this timeless American anthem?

As mentioned before, Katharine Lee Bates was an English professor at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. In 1893, Bates accepted an offer to teach a summer semester at Colorado College in Colorado Springs, Co. During her trip, Bates was deeply impressed by the vastness of the American landscape. Upon her arrival to Colorado Springs, Bates could not help but notice the majestic mountain off to the west, known to everyone as "America's Mountain," or Pikes Peak as we know it today.

Needless to say, Bates took a train ride to the summit of Pikes Peak in June of 1893. While taking in the breathtaking scenery at 14,110 feet, the words to her legendary poem started to fill her head. The "purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain" were enough to cause Bates to publish her poem, which was quickly incorporated with the music of Samuel A. Ward to give us America The Beautiful.

In addition to being the inspiration behind America The Beautiful, Pikes Peak has enjoyed a rich tradition of American history that virtually dates back to our nation's beginning. With this in mind, here is some additional history of America's Mountain...Pikes Peak:

1803: The Pikes Peak area is obtained by the United States as part of President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Colorado was on the fringe of the Louisiana Purchase, so very few Americans knew the topography of the land.

1806: President Jefferson dispatches Lt. Zebulon Montgomery Pike to determine the southwestern borers of the Louisiana Purchase. In the course of his trek, Pike decides to climb the peak on November 24th, but is unable to reach the summit due to the harsh Colorado winter climate. Pike gives the mountain its first "official" name as Grand Peak.

Zebulon Pike was the son of Army Officer Zebulon Pike, Sr., who served under George Washington during the American Revolution. After exploring the Pikes Peak region, Lt. Pike enjoyed a few more years of successfully exploring the western regions of the infant United States. Pike also served with distinction in the Battle of Tippecanoe and eventually served as a quartermaster in New Orleans during the War of 1812. As a result of his honorable service, Pike was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in 1813, and was assigned to lead several outposts along the shores of Lake Ontario. Sadly, Pike was killed by falling rocks and debris during a confrontation with the British.

1820: Dr. Edwin James, a historian and naturalist, becomes the first recorded person to reach the summit of Pikes Peak. He decides to rename the mountain James Peak for obvious reasons.

1840: The official name of Pikes Peak is adopted by Major John Charles Fremont in honor of Lt. Zebulon Pike.

1858: Julia Archibald Holmes becomes the first woman to climb Pikes Peak.

1860: Construction of the Ute Pass wagon road begins. The current road up Pikes Peak still follows most of this original wagon road.

1886-1888: The construction of the carriage road/train is built.

1893: Katharine Lee Bates writes, America The Beautiful, most of which she composed while on the summit.

1916: The first ever Pikes Peak Hill Climb is held. This is the second oldest automobile race in the United States, behind the Indianapolis 500.

What I find so interesting about the history of Pikes Peak is that it literally ties the history of the eastern United States -- where almost all of our nation's heritage and founding took place -- with its western future. America's Mountain as it is appropriately named symbolically joins the nation together as one. The east's rich history of American enlightenment and founding is able to link up with the west's rugged beauty and prosperous future thanks in part to this majestic 14,000 foot peak. No wonder Katharine Bates concluded her epic song with the words, "From sea to shining sea."

Here are a few pictures from my family's visit to America's Mountain, Pikes Peak:

During the Colorado gold rush of the 1800s, travelers heading west used to regularly adorn the sides of their wagons with, "Pikes Peak or Bust." Cripple Creek, which is located close to Pikes Peak, was the location of Colorado's second largest gold mine, so naturally travelers from the east would scan the horizon looking for their first glimpse of Pikes Peak.
At the base of America's Mountain, which is about 8,000 feet. Only 6,000 more to go!

On our way up the mountain we noticed that we were indeed, "Above the fruited plains."

Half way up the mountain, and the road is beginning to look like the old wagon rout of the 1800s!!!

Yep, we are officially above timber line.

Looks like a highway to heaven!

And now we are walking in the clouds...literally!

We made it! 14,000 feet never felt so good...or so hard on the lungs!

A view of Colorado Springs and the frontier to the Great Plains from more than two miles high.

Here is my family (out of breath and all) at 14,110 feet.

Oh yeah, be careful while coming DOWN the mountain!

For your enjoyment here is the most popular rendition of America The Beautiful by none other than Ray Charles:

Thomas Jefferson: Christian Restorationist

2008-07-19T12:06:00.000-07:00

Researching the individual religious beliefs of our various founding fathers has become a favorite pastime of mine. Whether it is trying to understand the mystery of George Washington, the complexity of Benjamin Franklin, or the "heretical" views of Thomas Paine, the topic of our founding fathers and their religion has captivated the attention of the public. Yet despite this attraction to the founders and their religion, I am amazed at the fact that so many historians, theologians, and common history buffs still push for a singular religious label when it comes to our founders. For example, we have all heard it said that Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, and that George Washington was a Theist, U(u)nitarian, devout Christian, etc. While these labels carry with them a certain degree of truth, it would be foolish to suggest that they contain all we need to know. After all, Franklin referred to himself as a "thorough deist" and a "devout Christian" at different points in his life. From the evidence available Washington's personal faith contained components of Christianity and deism. Simply put, it would be foolish of us to assume that a singular label -- i.e. Christianity, Deism, etc. -- is sufficient in explaining the religious views of our founding fathers.

With that said, I want to focus on one founder that has fallen victim to this "single religious label" phenomenon that I have mentioned above. We have all heard it said that Thomas Jefferson was clearly a deist. After all, the man rejected the divinity of Jesus, changed the Bible to fit his personal creed, and openly criticized organized religion on a number of occasions. While I cannot refute the validity of these facts, I do not believe that they can be used to conclusively label Jefferson as a Deist and nothing more. As Tom Van Dyke has pointed out in one of his posts on Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson was no "deist." His God was no cosmic watchmaker; he was active in the affairs of men ... I also noted that the Jefferson Bible left in The Lord's Prayer, which is probative, because when your watch breaks, you don't pray to Timex."

Mr. Van Dyke is absolutely right. Jefferson's God was an intervening force that helped to shape the course of mankind. As Mr. Van Dyke effectively points out, Jefferson never subscribed to the idea of an absent god/cosmic clockmaker.

With that said, I am in no way suggesting that deism played NO role in the religious views of Thomas Jefferson. I am simply saying -- and I believe Mr. Van Dyke is as well -- that deism only tells part of the story. When it comes to Jefferson and deism, perhaps Dr. Larry Cebula put it best when he wrote:

"I think you (and many others) make a mistake by applying a dictionary definition of Deism as if it were a set of principles equivalent to a religious test. Surely 18th century Deism was much more loose than that, more a set of inclinations and ideas than a set of fixed principles. It is hard to define precisely but I know it when I see it. If Deism was a big tent, Jefferson was at least a frequent visitor, and often made his home there."

(see comments section at this link).

It is not my intention to engage in a debate over Jefferson's deism. I believe that it is both reasonable and appropriate to embrace what both Tom Van Dyke and Larry Cebula point to. Deism played a role in Jefferson's faith to be sure, but it does not tell the entire story. With that said, I now want to turn to the main point of my post, which I hope will provide an additional interpretation of Jefferson's faith.

In my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's personal religion can be better understood when we recognize a few of the religious constants that he accepted throughout the course of his life:

1.) Jefferson loved Jesus but not Christianity.

2.) Jefferson loved scripture but despised its current interpretation.

3.) Jefferson believed in reason and not faith.

4.) Jefferson embraced the internal benefits of religious devotion but detested the outward demonstrations of Christian zealots.

In summation, I believe that in addition to his Christian and deist leanings, Jefferson was deeply influenced by his belief in Christian RESTORATIONISM, which caused Jefferson to accept what he believed were the true doctrines of Christ and to reject the distorted orthodoxy of his day.

Point #1: Jefferson loved Jesus, but not Christianity:
For Jefferson, the religion of Jesus Christ was simple. As he stated in an 1818 letter to Wells and Lilly of the Classical Press:

"I make you my acknowledgement for the sermon on the Unity of God, and am glad to see our countrymen looking that question in the face. it must end in a return to primitive Christianity" [my emphasis].

Jefferson's desire to return to the roots of "primitive Christianity" were the result of his conviction that the Christian religion had strayed from the true doctrine of Jesus Christ. As Jefferson stated on another occasion:

"The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers...Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages." [my emphasis]. (Thomas Jefferson, The writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7, H.A. Washington, ed., pp210, 257).

Later in his life, in a letter to Francis van der Kemp, Jefferson stated:

"I trust with you that the genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as it was preached and practised by himself. very soon after his death it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye" [my emphasis].

For Jefferson, true Christianity was not to be had in the ceremonial rituals of communion or the Calvinist doctrine of grace. Instead good works and moral behavior were the TRUE doctrine of a Christian:

"My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin's, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power."
(Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Parker, May 15, 1819).

As evidenced above, Jefferson's love for Jesus came not from a pious devotion to orthodoxy, but from a sincere appreciation of his doctrine. Jefferson sincerely believed that Christ's doctrines were to be admired and emulated. With regards to the morals of Jesus, Jefferson stated:

"It is the innocence of his character, the purity and sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquences of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which he conveys them, that I so much admire."

It was in his admiration of the example and doctrine of Jesus, not his devotion to pious orthodoxy, that Jefferson developed a love for Jesus. Perhaps Steven Waldman, author of the book, Founding Faith, points to Jefferson's love of Jesus best when he writes:

"Jefferson was driven to edit the Bible the way a parent whose child has been kidnapped is driven to find the culprit. Jefferson loved Jesus and was attempting to rescue him" (Founding Faith, 73).

Point #2: Jefferson loved scripture but despised its current interpretation:

In my opinion, there can be little doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of scripture. The simple fact that Jefferson spent so many years tediously dissecting the Bible to fit his personal beliefs is evidence of this fact. While there is no doubt that Jefferson's "tinkering" with the Bible has caused Christians to take an antagonistic stance against Jefferson, it is still worth analyzing the motives behind Jefferson's Bible editing.

As Steven Waldman stated in the quotation noted above, Jefferson's intentions behind altering the Bible were based on his belief that Christianity had strayed from the religion of Christ. As Jefferson stated in a letter to Samuel Kercheval in 1810:

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State: that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves: that rational men, not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

And to John Adams in 1813, Jefferson wrote:

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe."

It is clear that the reasons behind Jefferson's desire to "edit" the Bible were motivated out of his distrust for pious Christian leaders and from his sincere belief that Christianity had fallen from its true course.

When it comes to the Jefferson Bible, it is interesting to note just what kind of changes he chose to make. Clearly Jefferson did not intend to write his own version of the Bible, but instead hoped to recover some of the "missing" or "altered" truths that had been lost over time. Again, Jefferson hoped to RESTORE the true nature of Christ's religion as it was once contained in the Bible of old. A good example of Jefferson's passion to "correct" the Bible can be found in his 1823 letter to John Adams, in which he states:

"[A]nd his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st. chapter of John, in these words, `{en arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton Theon kai Theos en o logos. `otos en en arche pros ton Theon. Panta de ayto egeneto, kai choris ayto egeneto ode en, o gegonen}. Which truly translated means `in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made'. Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word {logos}. One of it's legitimate meanings indeed is `a word.' But, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning `reason', equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that `a word,' the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe."

In addition to pointing out where he believed the original translation of the Bible had gone wrong, Jefferson often took the liberty of changing certain parts of the Bible's text in an effort to make it sound more "Christ-like." For example, instead of keeping the biblical verse found in Matthew 5: 48, which states, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," Jefferson removed the verse completely and then added what was a twist of Luke 6: 36 when he wrote "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Clearly Jefferson felt that a number of biblical texts had been changed to pollute of subjugate the minds of mankind.

When it comes to the Jefferson Bible, it is also important to note the fact that all miracles -- i.e. raising Lazarus from the dead, turning water into wine, walking on water, etc. -- were removed from Jefferson's final draft. This helps to clearly illustrate the fact that Jefferson, despite his devotion to the example and doctrine of Christ, never acknowledged him as divine or as the savior of mankind. In fact, Jefferson even stated to his friend, John Adams, that:

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” (Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823).

For all of his praise and devotion to Jesus, Jefferson never publicly recognized him as the son of God.

Point #3: Jefferson believed in reason and not faith:

As one of the quintessential Enlightenment thinkers of early America, it should come as no surprise that Thomas Jefferson favored reason to faith. As mentioned above, Jefferson's removal of all miracles from his draft of the Bible suggests that he put little to no stock in faith-based stories, which he undoubtedly considered to be fables. In addition, Jefferson admonished his family and friends to put their trust in reason, not faith. As he wrote to Peter Carr in 1787:

"Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy & Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god." [My emphasis].

Point #4: Jefferson embraced the internal benefits of religious devotion but detested the outward demonstrations of Christian zealots:

This final point was perhaps the biggest pet-peeve of all for Thomas Jefferson. For a man that fought for religious freedom and equality, Jefferson could also not help but notice how pious expressions of religion had caused the world a great deal of harm. As he states in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”

For Jefferson, religion best served mankind when it was left to the individual and not the clergy:

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life" (Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 11, 1817).

In Jefferson's mind, this was the only true way to be a Christian. As Jesus himself had admonished to, "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men" (Matthew 6:1). With this in mind, it is understandable why Thomas Jefferson would refer to himself as a "true Christian." As he stated in a letter to Benjamin Rush:

"I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

In conclusion, Thomas Jefferson's religion was anything but simple. Defining him exclusively as a deist or any other label is both counterproductive and incomplete. Clearly Jefferson was influenced to a degree by deism, Christianity, U(u)nitarianism, etc. With that said, it is essential that we recognize the passionate devotion to RESTORATIONISM that literally guided Jefferson's walk through his personal labyrinth of religious devotion. Jefferson's love and admiration for the doctrines of Jesus, along with his appreciation of scripture, devotion to reason, and his appeal to private communion with God, all helped to shape Jefferson's religious perspective. By advocating a return to the original doctrines of Christ, Jefferson's Christian RESTORATIONISM is as important to his overall religious DNA as were deism and Christianity.

Christopher Hitchens v. Alister McGrath

2008-07-18T08:53:00.000-07:00

In a recent forum at Georgetown University, the highly acclaimed Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath squared off on a debate between atheism and religion. Hitchens, who is a devout supporter of atheism, is the author of the bestselling book, God is not Great. Hitchens also attended Oxford University where he specialized in journalism. Since then he has become a very popular international journalist.

Alister McGrath, who also attended Oxford, is a very well respected Christian theologian, historian and molecular biologist. In recent years, McGrath has spoken out against several prominent atheist writers -- including Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. McGrath supports the belief that science and religion -- specifically Christianity -- are completely compatible with one another, and that atheism is an irresponsible and unprovable scientific theory.

In this video, both Hitchens and McGrath engage in a respectful debate over this all-important issue. Though the video is a little long, I assure you that it is very enjoyable, especially if you love religious history like I do.

The Colorado Railroad Museum

2008-07-16T17:27:00.001-07:00

This past week, our family paid a visit to the Colorado Railroad Museum in Golden, Colorado. Here are a few pictures and videos from the trip:

Here is the entrance to the Colorado Railroad Museum. Inside there is a LARGE assortment of toy trains that are sure to make your three-year-old drool with delight. The building also houses a number of smaller artifacts and exhibits from the early days of Colorado railroading.

Here are Jaxson and Mom standing next to the oldest train in the museum. For a boy that plays and dreams about trains 24/7, this museum was like heaven on earth!

Jaxson working hard as the conductor for the day.

This is a 19th century passenger car that was exclusively reserved for the "Jet Set" passenger. The seats actually reclined to about the same degree as the coach seats on an airplane (which as we all know is not much).
Here is the first of two videos that we took. Like I mentioned before, Jaxson was walking on air the whole time, as you can tell from the video.

Dad and Jaxson hanging out in one of the many engines.

Playing with all of the gauges and buttons of an old engine!

Jaxson and Zakary taking in all of the sites!

Jaxson was not the only one that enjoyed the museum. Though only a year old, Zakary could not be contained!

Zakary hanging out with his most favorite person in the world. Yes, he is the biggest "Momma's boy" I have ever met!

Jaxson playing on the caboose. Not as cool as an engine, but it will do.

Dad and Jaxson uncoupling the train cars.

The little man going the wrong way.
And here is the final video:

So, if you are ever passing through Golden, Colorado keep in mind that the town has a lot more to see than the stupid factory for Coors beer. The Colorado Railroad Museum is sure to not disappoint, especially if you have the imagination and energy of a three-year-old!

"America is a Christian Nation...But so is Hell": Garry Wills on American Religion

2008-07-15T07:27:00.003-07:00

Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian Garry Wills discusses separation of church and state. Excellent video.

Native Americans and the Lost Tribes of Israel

2008-07-10T18:24:00.000-07:00

The indigenous tribes of the "New World" have been a source of fascination not only for modern scholars, but for early American colonists as well. For hundreds of years, historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, and clergymen have argued over the origins of the diverse Native American tribes that once encompassed the entire face of North and South America. Even in our modern society, scholars of all types continue to argue over the origins of the indigenous tribes of the Americas, despite advances in genetics, cultural anthropology and history.

Perhaps the most provocative of all the theories regarding the origins of Native American tribes is the belief that they are somehow a remnantof the 10 lost tribes of Israel. Even the earliest settlers and explorers of the New World were intrigued by the possibility of encountering a lost branch of the House of Israel in the New World. Christopher Columbus, the man credited with "discovering" the New World, proclaimed that these newly discovered "Indians" were, in fact, of Jewish origins. Columbus even suggested that Spain could, "recruit their bodies and their wealth to assist Europeans in a final crusade to crush Islam and reclaim Jerusalem" (Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settlement of North America, 33).

After the American Revolution, the fascination with Native American origins was carried to new heights. Despite the fact that no obvious proof could be found to substantiate the belief that Native Americans were the lost tribes of Israel, scores of religious zealots hoped to uncover this claim's validity. Just before embarking on their continental trek, President Thomas Jefferson wrote a brief letter to Meriwether Lewis and William Clark in which he instructed them to "acuire what knolege you can of the state of morality, religion & information among them [the Indians] as it may better enable those who endeavor to civilize & instruct them." In addition, Jefferson shared a personal correspondence with his friend, Meriwether Lewis, in which he expressed his hope that the trek west might provide evidence as to the whereabouts of the lost tribes of Israel (Stephen Ambrose, Undaunted Courage, 154).

In addition to the president, Dr. Benjamin Rush revealed his hope for the discovery of the lost tribes of Israel when he wrote the following inquiries to Lewis and Clark:

At what time do they rise? What about baths? Murder? Suicide? Are any animal sacrifices in their religion? What affinity between their religious Ceremonies & those of the Jews? [my emphasis].

Though the Lewis and Clark expedition never returned with any evidence to support the Native American/lost tribes of Israel claim, the legend remained extremely popular throughout the early part of the 19th century. Ethan Smith, for example, who was not only a pastor to a small church in Vermont but was also a self-proclaimed expert on Jewish history, hoped to prove the Jewish roots of Native Americans by appealing to the Bible. In his 1825 book, View of the Hebrews, Smith endeavored to point out what he saw as similarities between Native American religious custom and that of ancient Judaism. As Smith states:

In all their rites which I have learned of them, there is certainly a most striking similitude to the Mosaic rituals. Their feasts of first fruits; feasts of in gathering; day of atonement; peace offerings; sacrifices. They build an altar of stone before a tent covered with blankets; within the tent they burn tobacco for incense, with fire taken from the altar of burnt offering. All who have seen a dead human body are considered unclean eight days; which time they are excluded from the congregation.

For Smith, this was ample proof of God's biblical prophesy that, "he [God] shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12).

In the record of Imanual Howitt, who had traveled extensively throughout the United States in the early part of the 19th century, the Native Americans held a certain intrigue that permeated his writings. Howitt, though not a deeply religious man, had adopted the earlier opinion of William Penn, who believed that the "Indians...developed from the lost tribes of Israel." As a result, Howitt became a passionate advocate for the further study of Indian rituals and customs.

The fervor over the possibility of American Indians being of Jewish descent was only furthered when Barbara Simon published her book, The Ten Tribes of Israel Historically Identified with the Aborigines of the Western Hemisphere in 1836. Aside from quoting a plethora of biblical sources to defend her thesis, Simon also claims that early Mexican paintings found by Spanish conquistadors contain "allusions to the restoration of the dispersed tribes of Israel."

In addition to Simon's work, other books emerged during the early part of the 19th century in support of the Native American/lost tribes of Israel theory. Books like A View of the American Indians by Israel Worsley in 1828, American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West by Josiah Priest in 1835, and the before mentioned View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith in 1825. All of these works combined to create a spirit of enthusiasm that deeply favored the Native American/lost tribes of Israel connection.

Perhaps the most popular -- and most controversial -- interpretation on the origins of Native Americans comes from Mormon founder and prophet Joseph Smith. During his youth, Smith claimed to have received a revelation from a heavenly messenger, who related to Smith the location of a hidden record of an ancient people:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants.

This record, which eventually became known to the world as The Book of Mormon was allegedly a scriptural account of God's dealings with a remnant of Jewish descendants who had migrated to America during ancient times. As the Book of Mormon's introduction puts it:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

Regardless of their origins, the role of religion in shaping the perception of early American society was extraordinary. The aura of mystery that shrouded the origins of the various Native American tribes kept early Americans in suspense for centuries. For a people who were primarily defined by Christian doctrine, the "Indians" of the New World became a living exhibit of their biblical doctrine. By clothing these native tribes in the robes of the lost tribes of Israel, Christian zealots found an additional motive for their further conversion to their brand of Christianity.

Happy 4th!

2008-07-04T07:51:00.001-07:00

In Preparation For Independence Day

2008-07-03T11:47:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow will mark the 232nd birthday of the United States. In a little over two centuries the United States has witnessed some dramatic changes, both for the good and the bad. Despite all of these changes, however, one cannot help but appreciate the wonderful heritage, freedom and prosperity that has helped to sustain America throughout the past 232 years.

Sadly, a large number of Americans have forgotten -- or never bothered to learn in the first place -- our nation's history. A recent study by NPR News sadly states that most Americans remain woefully ignorant of this nation's heritage. In fact, roughly 40% of all Americans have NEVER ONCE read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any of the other important founding documents of our nation's birth.

I for one find it amazing that Americans are so quick to profess their love, admiration and patriotism for this nation, yet remain ignorant of its history and development. In many ways, this phenomenon is similar to the professing Christian that knows little or nothing about his/her religion's doctrine. How can one profess loyalty or patriotism to a nation or cause if he/she knows nothing of its history? As Cicero stated so many years ago, "History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity...one cannot become a true citizen without first gaining an understanding of history."

As the barbecue pits begin to heat up and the fireworks are pulled out from the closet, remember that tomorrow's celebration is, in the end, a celebration of America's great heritage. If you are one of those 40% that have never read the Dec. of Independence, the Constitution, etc., then I invite you to correct that mistake, and what better day than tomorrow to do it!

With this in mind, here is a wonderful video on the Declaration of Independence, in which the document is read in its entirety. Also, here are a few links to some historical documents that EVERY AMERICAN should read.

Happy Independence Day!

Here is the EXCELLENT Declaration of Independence Video:

And some other links:

*The Constitution of the United States click here
*Bill of Rights click here
*Articles of Confederation click here
*Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty of Give me Death" speech click here
*James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" click here
*Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" click here

Catholic/Protestant Wars in the Old and New Worlds

2008-07-03T10:43:00.001-07:00

The traditional view of early colonial historiography has divided the various wars between England and France -- in both the New and Old Worlds -- into separate conflicts that are seemingly unrelated to one another. Instead of seeing these various wars as being linked with one another, many historians have chosen to classify these various Franco-English wars as unique and individual conflicts. For example, from the latter part of the 17th century to the middle of the 18th, historians have traditionally taken note of four SEPARATE conflicts between the French and the English: King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War and the French and Indian War -- as they were known in the colonies. However, what is often an overlooked fact of these conflicts is the reality that they all shared the same underlying root cause: religious intolerance.

Here is a list of the major Franco-English conflicts during the late 17th and 18th centuries:

Date: In Europe: In America:
1688-1697
In Europe: War of the League of Augsburg
In America: King William's War

1701-1713
In Europe: War of Spanish Succession
In America: Queen Anne's War

1740-1748
In Europe: War of Austrian Succession
In America: King George's War

1756-1763
In Europe: Seven Years' War
In America: The French and Indian War

***Chart taken from A Religious History of the American People by Sydney Ahlstrom, 58.***

From this chart, it is evident that a repeating cycle of violence and intolerance between England and France -- in both the New and Old Worlds -- was keeping these two rival nations in a constant state of war with one another. But what was main cause for such violence? What main factor continued to bring these two neighbors into conflict with one another?

Regardless of the smaller instigating factors of each of these wars, there remained a steady stream of religious fervor, which proved to be the main catalyst for war in each occasion. As colonial historian Karen Kupperman points out:

We should not underestimate the emotional force of this confrontation between Christians, which has been compared to the Cold War of the twentieth century. Each side believed the other was absolved by its religion of all normal moral and ethical behavior in dealing with the enemy, and capable of the most heinous plots.(From Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony, 4)

For the English, there was nothing worse than facing the possibility of a New World being ruled by the Pope.

On the French side, religious passions were every bit as hot as their English foes. Sydney Ahlstrom has pointed out in his book A Religious History of the American People:

"During the century in which France's colonial aspirations awakened, there also occurred a remarkable resurgence of Catholic piety...In New France the faith and institutions of the Roman church gained a centrality and importance that was equaled in no other empire, not even New Spain." (59-61).

Faced with such religious enthusiasm on the part of the English and the French, it comes as no surprise that this "holy war" would go unresolved for almost a century.

By choosing to look at these various conflicts through the lens of religious enthusiasm, we can clearly see that these wars were not separate quarrels but were, in fact, linked through a chain of religious intolerance. English Protestants, still burning with the fires of the Reformation, saw the New World as an additional arena where Catholic supremacy threatened to destroy God's TRUE work. French Catholics, inspired by the resurgence of Catholic piety, sought to spread the Pope's dominion across the seas and choke out the rebellion of the Protestant heretics.

Cool Video on our Changing World

2008-07-02T19:02:00.000-07:00

"So Help Me God" as a "Religious Test"

2008-06-30T19:11:00.000-07:00

Over at American Creation, we have been arguing over the historical accuracy of the Washington inauguration. Over the years, a number of historians have been debating the authenticity of Washington's oath of office, specifically as to whether or not he concluded with the words, "So help me God." While the historical record remains incomplete on this subject, there is certainly enough reason to doubt that Washington ever stated, "So help me God." One account, by Comte de Moustier of France, who was present at Washington's oath of office, states that Washington put his right hand on the Bible, his left hand over his heart, and that he quietly recited the oath of office as prescribed in the Constitution. There is no mention of "So help me God" being uttered by the newly elected President.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, the presidential oath of office, as it states in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yet, despite this VERY SPECIFIC oath of office, why is it that U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who are swearing in our newly elected presidents, are essentially obligating them to say "So help me God"? Don't believe me? Just check out a few recent presidential inaugurations and listen very carefully as the Chief Justice inserts "So help me God" as part of the oath, even though, as you can see above, it is not part of the Constitution. Is this a violation of Article VI, Section III of the Constitution, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"?

Here are the videos:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

Harry Truman:

Dwight D. Eisenhower:

John F. Kennedy:

Lyndon Johnson:

Richard Nixon:

Anyway, I think you get the picture. Every president since television and radio recording was possible has been asked -- or forced -- to say "So help me God" as a part of their oath of office, even though the Constitution does not require it.

From a personal perspective, I don't really care what these presidents say in their oath. As far as I am concerned the presidential inauguration ceremony is all a bunch of pomp and circumstance to begin with . But for some, this is a big deal, and I have to wonder why.

Does anyone here HONESTLY care if a president says, "So help me God" at the conclusion of his oath of office? Is it really that big of a deal? I understand that it is fun to investigate the historical validity of the Washington inauguration. After all, these mundane tidbits of history are often some of the most revealing bits of evidence on a person's character, state of mind, etc.

For me, this is the same as the "One Nation Under God" debate. I realize that some people are EXTREMELY passionate about this (and they have every right to be so). If it really is that offensive or problematic for a person to say the Pledge of Allegiance -- as is the case with a number of religions, specifically the Jehovah's Witnesses -- then they should be free to avoid the Pledge of Allegiance. It's like the 10 Commandments being in front of a courthouse or government building. Take them away, leave them there, I simply do not care. Of how about the ridiculous debate over "In God We Trust" being on our money. This one is a personal favorite of mine. Again, take it off the money, leave it on, I just don't believe it is that big of an issue to fight over. By the way, didn't Jesus already sort of weight in on this one? From Mark chapter 12 we read:

14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

After all, we are talking about MONEY, and I seriously doubt that God cares whether or not his name is on WORLDLY MONEY or not.

In the end, these fights over the public usage of Christian-centered words is all pretty hypocritical to begin with. Both sides seem to be fighting over something that they will never agree upon, which is why we should strive for mutual tolerance instead of forcing our agendas on one another. After all, religious beliefs are a PERSONAL issue, which is something we all tend to forget. Or as Jesus put it:

Matthew 6:
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

The "Melancholy" of Meriwether Lewis

2008-06-30T12:07:00.000-07:00

The study of mental health is, for the most part, a relatively new field of science. For centuries the human race has had little to no understanding of how the mind processes or responds to the various stimuli and experiences of a given lifespan. For the most part, the common understanding of mental health throughout history has been to categorize individuals as "lunatics," "insane," or "melancholy." The lack of knowledge regarding proper diagnosis and treatment of mental health often led to tragic tales of individuals locked away in asylums, or of men and women taking their own lives out of desperation.

The early American republic, despite its great advances in government and politics, was still a world of ignorance in the medical arena. Doctors possessed little to no understanding of the causes or treatments of mental illness. As a result, many early Americans were forced to deal with the various forms of mental illness on their own.

Such was the case for the heroic early American explorer, Meriwether Lewis. As a young man, Lewis was labeled as being, "prone to long bouts of melancholy." In fact, Lewis' good friend, Thomas Jefferson, described him as, "a man of good sense, integrity, bravery and enterprise" but also, "prone at times to sensible depressions of the mind...that seem to persist in the family."
Even during his infamous trek across the American countryside, Lewis seemed troubled by what his subordinates called "deep bouts of melancholy." Though Lewis never mentioned such troubles himself, one can easily see a pattern of highs and lows in his journal. For instance, Lewis would go weeks without writing a single thing down (even though President Jefferson had insisted that he keep a record of every day), while on other occasions he would fill several pages with his ramblings on mundane issues.

By most standards, it appears that Lewis suffered from Bipolar Disorder. One of the typical features of this disorder is a pattern of extreme highs and extreme lows. The individual will commonly experience a profound period of deep depression, in which they are unable to cope with common daily issues. After a period of time, the individual will experience a complete change in their emotional state, in which the depression is replaced by a state of extreme euphoria. During this period, the individual may feel that they can literally conquer the world. Again, after time, this stage will cycle back to depression.

Meriwether Lewis is virtually a textbook case for this disorder. During his "low" times, Lewis was inconsolable, often seeking seclusion from society. During the "high" moments, Lewis was a fireball of energy and ambition. Throughout the trek west, Lewis would commonly attempt to cross several dangerous rapids or stare danger in the face without flinching. At other times, he was virtually impossible to motivate or talk to.

Eventually Lewis's mental illness would get the better of him. On the night of October 11, 1809, while his party stayed the night in the cabin of a Mrs. Grinder, the life of Meriwether Lewis came to an abrupt end. According to Mrs. Grinder, Lewis appeared to be in a state of profound depression. The depression was severe enough that the men accompanying Lewis that night actually contemplated tying him to the bed for the duration of the night. Mrs. Grinder stated that she witnessed Lewis "pacing around the home...speaking to himself in a violent manner."

Later that evening, while preparing to retire, Mrs. Grinder heard a shot ring out, and Lewis shouting, "O Lord!" Lewis has shot himself in the chest. In the early hours of the morning, Lewis finally succumbed to the gunshot.

Though the story of Meriwether Lewis ends sadly and abruptly, it serves as a wonderful illustration to historians of the realities of mental illness. By no means are these illnesses exclusively reserved for the modern individual. We would all do well to remember that people of the past, just as they do today, suffered greatly from the effects of mental illness.

The Thomas Jefferson Hour

2008-06-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

For most Americans, Sunday is a day of worship and devotion to the Almighty for the blessings that he has bestowed upon us. As families make their way to their respective churches and pastors make their last minute notations to their sermons, millions of other Americans are finding their Sunday solace on the golf course, a football game, or simply by sleeping in.

Though I have no intention of engaging in a debate over the proper way that an individual should spend his/her Sunday, I do want to at least make a suggestion to those of you that are looking for an additional activity to fill your Sunday. Instead of devoting your entire day to the pursuit of leisure and/or pious meditation upon God, how about you set aside one hour to listen to our nation's 3rd president.

That's right. Thomas Jefferson is alive and well! In fact, he has his own radio program. Jefferson can be heard loud and clear every Sunday morning across this great nation (in Co. Springs where I live, Jefferson can be heard on 91.5 KRCC). In fact, the man has been on the radio for quite some time. He has amassed over 700 installments, each packed with the incredible insight that only Thomas Jefferson can provide.

The New Enlightenment Radio Network, in conjunction with renowned scholar Clay Jenkinson, have combined to create The Thomas Jefferson Hour, which has become a special treat for history nerds across the country. Jenkinson, who portrays Jefferson on the program, takes questions, phone calls, and answers emails as if he were the REAL Jefferson (which, I must admit he excels at).

On the website for the program (which can be seen by clicking here) the producers of The Thomas Jefferson Hour give a brief explanation of their intentions. It states:

The Thomas Jefferson Hour® is a weekly radio program dedicated to the search for truth in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, was a man of the Enlightenment, a student of human nature and gentlemanly behavior, and he applied this to his personal life as well as to both the national and world wide challenges he faced during the forming of our nation.
Nationally acclaimed humanities scholar and award winning first person interpreter of Thomas Jefferson, Clay Jenkinson, portrays Jefferson on the program, and he answers listener questions while in the persona of Jefferson--his answers are grounded in the writings and actions of the great man.

Our mission is to generate one-on-one discourse between friends and family members, then to help broaden it to national discourse (replace the 30 second two position only sound bites) about important, and many times sensitive, topics to our country and to our citizens. We do this in a unique and entertaining way—through the voice of our third president Thomas Jefferson.

Our listeners have encouraged us to sprinkle the program lineup with out-of-character programs. The format is one of Clay Jenkinson, the humanities scholar and social commentator, examining a current or historical event using both a Jeffersonian lens and a modern-day humanities lens. The gift we bring to both program formats is the ability to help people strip through the advertised message and look for the truth of the situation. The truth may be painful and self-revealing, but it is always uplifting to the spirit.

The Thomas Jefferson Hour® appeals to Public Radio listeners, not just history buffs. While some of our primary stations are in historical areas (Norfolk and Radford, Virginia) or areas that are Jeffersonian (North Dakota, Kansas, Texas), our largest listening audience occurs in postmodern regions such as Fresno, California and Colorado Springs, Colorado. Our appeal truly is our ability to bring out the truth in a non-dramatic, unthreatening manner then to help our audience think through the complexity of the decision making process, bringing clarity to the steps and the events.

For all you early American buffs, I encourage you to check out the website, where all of the local affiliates are listed, along with the program's schedule. Even if you are not a history nut, The Thomas Jefferson Hour is an enjoyable program for everyone!

Check it out!

The Second Amendment Saga

2008-06-29T14:07:00.000-07:00

As you all know by now (unless you have been hiding under a rock) the Supreme Court ruled on one of the most controversial issues of our day -- gun control and the Second Amendment. In the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled 5-4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun in your personal residence for self-defense. This ruling overturned the D.C. handgun ban, which was the strictest gun-control law in our nation's history.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote for the majority opinion, stated that the justices "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country...But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table...It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the Second Amendment applies only to a militia, and that the Constitution’s framers were afraid that the new federal government would disarm the populace, as the British had tried to do. Thus, the current interpretation of the Second Amendment needs a modern interpretation and revision.

After a few weeks of intense deliberation following the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers -- specifically James Madison and George Mason -- drafted the following, which has remained unchanged for over 2oo years:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

On the surface, this does not seem like a big deal. But when we consider some of the factors that came into the drafting of this amendment we can see that it is a big deal after all. In William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which was used by our founders when drafting the Second Amendment, Blackstone argues:

"That it is a fundamental right of the people to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property...and the right of the individual to keep and bear arms to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law...is the surest way to ensure our liberties."

What most people don't realize about this ruling is that the government still has the power to regulate gun ownership in a number of ways. First off, Justice Scalia pointed out that this ruling simply refers to an individual's right to own a gun for HOME PROTECTION, and that state and city governments have a right to forbid gun ownership in public venues. Also, this ruling has nothing to do with the assault weapons ban that many states have passed. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons can still be regulated and restricted.

In my opinion, I think that the Supreme Court was exactly right in this ruling for the following reasons:

1.) The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own a gun for much more than his/her participation in a militia. Both Hamilton and Madison argued this point ad nauseam in The Federalist Papers. If you interpret the Constitution according to the doctrine of original intent (which is the way I believe it should be interpreted), then it is clear that an individual should have the right to own a firearm.

2.) Most people have overlooked the fact that this ruling still allows the states to restrict gun ownership in a number of ways, which in my opinion is a very good thing. Assault weapons should NOT fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. Only handgun ownership within one's home OR with a valid concealment permit should be permitted. And I guess hunters should have their rifles, so long as they are NOT automatic/semi-automatic assault rifles. Simply put, those are not needed to kill a deer!

3.) The Supreme Court was right to uphold the original intent of the 2nd Amendment because to do otherwise would have created a slippery slope that could have led to the possible infringement of other constitutional rights. The last thing we want is for lawsuits that seek to restrict our rights to petition, assemble, etc. to end up on the desk of the Supreme Court. The doctrine of original intent makes it clear that the government CANNOT INFRINGE the rights of the people that are guaranteed in the Constitution -- even though virtually every president since Lyndon Johnson has done just that, now I am digressing.

Anyway, your thoughts...