Recently mydh12 wrote something that I think needs further
addressing.
"Again Jon, I don't care if the FF were not orthodox Christians. They
recognized the absolute need for Christianity as the basis for the
morality that would provide the underpinning for an "ordered freedom"
in their new democracy. You don't seem to do that."
This is arguably absolutely wrong and it all depends on what
Christianity means. Remember, according to folks like TL, (and
perhaps YOU should believe this as well) if you aren't an orthodox
Christian, you aren't a Christian period. What we have termed
"theistic rationalism" or "unitarianism" often presented itself under
the AUSPICES of Christianity. And it was that -- theistic rationalism
NOT "orthodox Christianity" that they key Founders chose to undergird
America's civil institutions. Theistic rationalism isn't necessarily
hostile to orthodox Christianity. Rather it blurs the line between
that and other non-Christian religions. So, you are wrong, the key
Founders chose "religion in general" not necessarily "Christianity" in
particular to provide the moral basis for republican government. The
following is my most recent post detailing a letter from John Adams
which explicates this theory. And I'll note, Jefferson & Franklin
without question believed in Adams' sentiments. Religion could mean
"Christianity." Or it could mean "Hinduism" or Zeus worship. That's
what the FFs meant when they said the Constitution was made for a
"religious" (not necessarily "Christian") people. And everything
Washington and Madison publicly or privately wrote is consistent with
the following from Adams:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/08/founders-religion-and-context.html
The Founders, Religion, and Context
Context is everything. I see the Christian America side as utterly
misunderstanding context when they quote the key Founders in favor of
their thesis. Yet, when I offer brief quotations invariably I get
accused of the same thing; or in the absence seeing the entire
passage, folks skeptical of my ideas refuse to believe my conclusions
in the absence of seeing the context.
I believe context is clearly on my side; but ultimately it's in the
eye of the beholder. Right now, I am going to post a link to an entire
letter of John Adams' -- to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813. What
follows will be Gregg Frazer's exegesis of the letter. This way all
readers can check Frazer's interpretation with the original and
hopefully will conclude that he is being faithful to context. The
letter is one of Adams' clearest explications of "theistic
rationalism" or "unitarianism." Yet, it also contains a quotation that
the Christian America side loves to quote out of context. Dr. Frazer
originally explained the context on this Internet forum. The context
of the debate is a brief quotation found in that letter where Adams
finds "Christian principles" in Hinduism and essentially says Hindus
worship the same God as Christians. As Adams put it:
-- Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more
profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]?
“God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning,
without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence,
resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the
nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and
presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You
adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.” --
A Christian America apologist could hope that the quotation could be
explained away in context. But, rather the context demonstrates Adams
was a theistic rationalist who believed most or all religions,
including Hinduism, worshipped the same God as Christians. As Dr.
Frazer wrote to a "Christian America" apologist:
-- Re the Adams Hindu quote: the only way FOR YOU to understand
Adams’s quote is to “ASSUME” what he clearly did not mean (if one
knows the context — which I do). In context, he has just said:
“Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original
revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. … no subsequent
revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede
it.” [the latter refers, of course, to the Bible and its inferiority
to philosophy] He goes on to say: “Philosophy looks with an impartial
eye on all terrestrial religions” and then talks about the Bible
further. About the Bible, he then says: “such parts of it as I cannot
reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future
investigation.” He then talks about Joseph Priestley (his spiritual
mentor) and about various religious systems he and Priestley have
encountered, including Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Plato, the
Brahmins, and then the Shastra — and the quoted commentary on the
Shastra. A paragraph later, he says “these doctrines, sublime, if ever
there were any sublime, Pythagoras learned in India, and taught them
to Zaleucus and his other disciples.” Earlier in the same letter, he
said: “The preamble to the laws of Zaleucus, which is all that
remains, is as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s ….” This
is critical because Priestley is Adams’s (& Jefferson’s) spiritual
mentor and because the laws of Zaleucus were supposedly handed down to
pagans from Athena! SO YOU SEE THAT HE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED
CHRISTIANITY IN THE COMPARISON! Further, if a set of laws supposedly
handed down from Athena 600 years before the birth of Christ can be
considered “Christian” — what real meaning does the term have for
Adams? See, you have to find out what THEY meant by the terms they
used. --
I reproduced this except at Positive Liberty and a reader, skeptical
of Dr. Frazer's interpretation, quoted out of context from that very
letter, the passage that the Christian Nation crowd loves to quote.
Adams did indeed write:
-- I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my streightened
means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the
Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little
Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have seen: and such Parts of it as
I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future
investigation. --
The Christian Nation crowd usually stops after "best book in the
world," because what comes next begins to belie the message they want
to read into Adams' sentiments -- that he was a Christian who believed
the Bible infallible. But, again, the context, demonstrates otherwise.
As Dr. Frazer put it:
-- Re Adams’s comment about the Bible...: he declares the Bible “the
best book in the world,” but that doesn’t change the fact (as he has
just asserted) that it does not supersede philosophy. Indeed, he says
it is the best BECAUSE it contains more of HIS philosophy than any
other — not because it is inspired or infallible — but because it
agrees with him! Then, having established that the Bible does not
supersede philosophy and having determined that it is the best book
BECAUSE it “contains more of my little philosophy” than any other, he
says that there are parts which he cannot reconcile to his philosophy
— which means they’re wrong! They cannot supersede philosophy and what
is best is HIS philosophy. --
Again, the context of Adams' Dec. 25 1813 letter to Jefferson shows
him to be not an orthodox Christian, but a theistic rationalist. If
you are skeptical, check the context.