Founders’ faith was pretty much faithless

Listening to conservative talk radio before Christmas, to hear what the uninformed and clueless have to say, I wasn't disappointed when the subject turned to how the founding fathers of the United States supposedly were devout Christians.

That's a bunch of hooey. The main evidence that usually is dragged out for this crock of historical B.S. is the reference in the Declaration of Independence to the Creator.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It's well known, of course, that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin were deists who believed in reason, not revelation, and in a God detached from the creation, not a God who intervenes and takes an interest in human affairs.

Columnist David Ignatius echoes this truth in an excellent piece I read today, "Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists: What Jefferson and Adams Might Tell Mitt Romney."

A bracing text for this Christmas week is the famous correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Their letters are a reminder that the Founders were men of the Enlightenment -- supreme rationalists who would have found the religiosity of much of our modern political life quite abhorrent.

It's not that these men didn't have religious beliefs: They were, to their deaths, passionate seekers of truth, metaphysical as well as physical. It's that their beliefs didn't fit into pious cubbyholes. Indeed, the deist Jefferson took a pair of scissors to the New Testament to create his "Jefferson Bible," or, formally, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," which cut out the parts he regarded as supernatural or misinterpreted by the Gospel writers.

Yes, the founding fathers were not Christians. At least, not in any sense even remotely connected with the hateful, closed-minded, dogmatic, anti-science Christianity prevalent in the United States today. Ignatius has it exactly right.

One theme in this year's political campaign has been whether the United States will move from the faith-based policies the Bush administration has celebrated to a more rationalist and secular approach. In this debate, religious conservatives like to stress their connection to the Founders and to the republic's birth as "one nation under God." But a rereading of the Adams-Jefferson letters is a reminder that in this debate, the Founders -- as men of the Enlightenment -- would surely have sided with the party of Reason.

Interestingly, it seems that the original draft of the Declaration of Independence didn't use the word "Creator." The language said: "…that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation… ."

Sure, we're all created. In our mother's wombs. Out of physical matter and energy. Which comes to us courtesy of the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago.

If you want to call whatever lies behind the grand unfolding of the universe "Creator," I've got no problem with that. Just don't expect me to equate this force with any religious entity, Christian or otherwise.

Comments

[Phil Hanson]

When you strip away faith, what you have left is reason and critical thinking. Or not.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear Phil Hanson,

I fully agree with you.

Spiritual progress grows over faith on self and its creator and progress in science grows on reasoning.

But man progresses with both - faith and resoning.

with regards,

[Tucson]

Romney is a Mormon, but that doesn't mean he is fanatical about it. It is the media's fanatical obsession with his Mormon faith which makes it appear he is.

This doesn't mean I'm for Romney (I'm undecided), it means I'm against the media blowing something out of proportion to bring down a candidate.

Brian wrote: " At least, not in any sense even remotely connected with the hateful, closed-minded, dogmatic, anti-science Christianity prevalent in the United States today."

--No doubt there are hateful, dogmatic, close-minded, anti-science christians, but I would not characterize the average, american, mainstream christian that way.

I think of most christians as being like I was when I was associated with RSSB. I didn't hate those who didn't believe as I did, and I got along well enough with most non-satsangis. I was willing to discuss my religion, but I didn't lay a trip on people or force-feed them. I believed I had found the True Way, but didn't think less of others because they hadn't. I just thought they were less fortunate.

My experience with Christians has been pretty benign, with a few exceptions. I have met some weird fanatics, but generally, they're just regular folks who seem to be going through the motions sort of robotically. It seems to be more of a social custom than an activist belief system for them. I have no fear of these people. We have a working relationship.

For about a decade, I employed a farrier who was a "born again" christian. He used to use the analogy of a bicycle exploded into all its component parts floating around in a boundless sky. He would say that the odds of the universe coming together as a functioning whole without God is the same as all those bicycle parts coming together into a functioning bicycle without a mechanic. I said, yeah, but the universe had plenty of time on its hands.

I couldn't accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, but we were friends and respected each other even though we disagreed on certain things. I would have trusted him with my home and children let alone my country.

"Which comes to us courtesy of the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago."

--I was watching on Discovery or National Geographic about the "Birth of the Universe". They spoke so authoritatively about the Big Bang Theory and how the universe and all the elements resulted from the explosion of this little, incredibly potent, marble-sized ball of energy. Then they admitted they have no idea how this little marble of energy came to be.

Reminds me of when I was little and I asked my mother, if God made the world, who made God?

By the way, how big is a marble when there is nothing else existent to compare it to?

[tAo]

I am not sure I agree with you Rakesh.

"Spiritual progress", "faith on self", "its creator" -- Just what do you mean by that? What "creator"? And "creator" of what?

"man progresses with both - faith and resoning." -- What progress is faith?

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear tAo,

Anything that appears on this earth is as a result of some mechanisn or the other. And everything of this earth belongs to somebody or the other. One which can not be ascribed to any owner, I am refering that tangiblly unknown as "creator". "Faith on self" is referred to the conviction with which each one of us work on any field- spiritual or mundane.

Progress is a subjective term.

I might have not been able to put words appropriately. I am one of those. Please refer to the following link.

http://www.afb.org/mylife/book.asp?ch=P3Ch4

with regards,

[Edward]

Uh oh. I believe I have Rights. That these Rights make me Equal. I can't see or prove any of this, but I believe it to be true, even in the face of over-whelming evidence.

Doomed, I say.

[tAo]

Rakesh,

Its not your use of english that I disagree with. It's you ideas, presumptions, and beliefs.

I had previously decided not to debate anymore with other commenters such as yourself, but there seems to be a need for clarity here. I notice that some of what you say is not necessarily the way things are. You have foregone conclusions and presumptions which are merely your personal opoinions or spiritual dogma which you parrot, and not proven fact or truth.

You said:

"Anything that appears on this earth is as a result of some mechanisn or the other."

-- You don't know that for certain. Appearance is merely appearance, a perception. So why speak in such an authoritarian manner? You sound too much like sant mat religious dogma speaking.

"And everything of this earth belongs to somebody or the other."

-- Nonsense. That is absoultely NOT true. Nothing belongs to anyone. It is all part of the whole. And there is an enormous percentage of the "earth" and nature which is not within any human being's direct possession or control. So your statement is basically absurd.

"One which can not be ascribed to any owner, I am refering that tangiblly unknown as "creator".

-- What owner? And to say the "unknown" is a "creator" makes no sense at all. How can you say or imply that you KNOW that something is a "creator", when that something is by your own admission UNKNOWN? You are talking about ideas that are supernaturalistic. Where is the proof that this "unknown" that you refer to is "creator". There is no such "creator" anywhere except in your own mind. Where is this supposed "creator" that you speak of, that you project? You are talking nonsense. You are talking about something which you say is "unknown", therefore how can you say anything about what that is? You are contradicting yourself. You are talking supernaturalistic bullshit, imo. There is only what IS (ie: what we perceive) in this ever fleeting moment.

"Faith on self is referred to the conviction with which each one of us work on any field - spiritual or mundane."

-- "Faith" is NOT conviction. Faith is simply blind belief without any proof or knowledge. One who has knowledge, does not need faith. Faith is a lack of knowledge.

But what do we know? We only know things which are and can be proven to everyone again and again. Beyond that, there is only mere unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural.

You are obviously not a pragmatic person. I think you are too much influenced and conditioned by abstract dogma and spiritualism and supernaturalism.

"Progress is a subjective term."

-- "Progress" is subjective, but more importantly, it is all very RELATIVE. But I asked YOU, what do YOU mean by "progress"? You evaded that question and gave me a vague non-answer. Don't bullshit me. You are playing evasive word games. Again, what kind of "progress" do you mean specifically?

In conclusion, I suspect that you are just philosophizing, and really don't know what you're actually talking about. This seems to be a common trait among many spiritually oriented blog commenters like yourself.

[tAo]

Brian,

Very good post. Thank you for addressing this important issue. I think a lot of folks, namely Americans, have been quite deceived and misled by Christians with an agenda, about the facts and they have been given a rather false and distorted impression about the founding fathers and their orientation and beliefs. The more this happens, the more I despise those with religious agendas, and in this case Christians.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear tAo,

I like the remarks made by you on my comments. But I do not like the way it is done. The paragraph is broken into individual sentences and each sentence is considered an independent entity. The actual spirit behind the comment vanishes.

I would request you to not to brand me parroting any spiritual dogma. I write as I believe. You have a right to differ with me to the extent that you wish or you are.

You know my background that I am a pure mundane person. I love to hear from you on my comments the way you perceive them. I feel one can put forth one’s own comments without actually belittling the other person. I have learnt to accept your style in comments as well.

I shall not write more than this, otherwise I will be termed as eulogizing you.

With regards,

[tAo]

Rakesh,

Alright... I will try my best to present it your way:

It's not at all your use of english that I disagree with. It's about your ideas, presumptions, and beliefs.

I had previously decided not to debate anymore with other commenters such as yourself, but there seems to be a need for clarity in this instance. I notice that some of what you say is not necessarily the way things are. You seem to have foregone conclusions and presumptions which are more your own personal opinions or spiritual dogma which you subscribe to, and not proven facts or undeniable truth.

You really don't know for certain that whatever appears on this earth is the result of some mechanism. Appearances are merely appearances, or perceptions. So why speak with such certainty? You sound a little like sant mat spiritual dogma speaking.

It is not necessarily true that everything of this earth belongs to somebody or the other. Actually, everything does not belong to anyone. It is all just part of the whole. And moreover, there is an enormous percentage of the earth and nature which is not within any any human being's direct possession or control.

As for the idea of a creator... to say that the unknown is a creator makes no sense at all. How can you say or imply that you KNOW that something is a creator, when that something is by your own admission someting UNKNOWN? You are talking about ideas that are basically supernaturalistic. Where is the proof or that this unknown that you refer to, is a creator of anything. There is no such creator to be seen anywhere, except as an idea, a thought in the mind. Where is this supposed creator that you speak of, that you conjecture? You are talking about something which you say is unknown... but how can you say anything about what that is, if it is unknown? This is a contradiction. Are you aware if that? You are alluding to something that is abstract and supernatural, not something which is obvious. All that can be said to exist, is only what IS (ie: what we see and perceive) in this always ever fleeting moment.

Faith is not quite the same as conviction. Faith is simply blind belief without any proof or knowledge. One who has knowledge, does not need faith. Faith is necessary when there is an absence of knowledge.

But what do we really know? We only know things which can be proven to everyone again and again. Beyond that, there is only mere unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural and the abstract.

You don't appear to be a very pragmatic person. And I think you may be too much influenced and conditioned by philosophical and religious dogma and spiritualism and supernaturalism.

The notion of progress is subjective, but more importantly, it is all very relative. However, I asked YOU, what do YOU mean by "progress"? You have evaded that question twice, and have given only a vague non-answer. Again, what kind of "progress" do you mean specifically?

In conclusion, I suspect that you are just casually philosophizing, and that you really don't know what you're actually talking about. But this seems to be a common trait among many spiritually oriented blog commenters. This is not any criticism of you personally, but only a general observation.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

Dear tAo,

To me your above expression makes a lot of difference. I have really liked it.

I know that a lion can not chirp and a bird can not roar, but man can do everything.

Faith is a feeling and beyound knowledge.

Nebula theory of origin of the earth, envisages a primordial cloud of gases which were set in motion and from which separated out the planets, in nutshell. It is that force which is the creator and sustainer of the universe. It is accepted by the scientific community as far as I know. That is what I was trying to refer to "creator".

Progress means one's upliftment from the previous state. It could be health, wealth or spiritual ( I am unable to elaborate this).

with regards,