Hiding in the Backwaters Just one more blog on the net.

Our “Christian” Nation

I read something over at Positive Liberty that has become a pet peeve of mine. I actually enjoyed the article itself. I have blogged along those lines before. It's the discussion in the comments that ensued that is bothering me.

I am continually flabbergasted by Christian arrogance. I don't suppose it's unique to Christianity. I suspect most major religions claim to have cornered the market on virtue, but since I live in a "Christian nation," it's their arrogance that gets up my nose most often. More and more often today, we hear that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Actually, no, it wasn't. Sure, the principles upon which the U.S. was founded happen to coincide with some Christian values. Apparently that's all the "proof" many need to assume the Founding Fathers were Christian at heart.

In the comments to Jonathan's article we find George Washington once again held up as a Christian exemplar. Never mind there is no evidence in any of his extant writings to support this claim. The work of Jared Sparks is most often held up as proof positive that Washington was indeed a Christian.^1,2 However, as one historian points out, "If Dr. Sparks found from Washington's writings that he never had a 'doubt of the Christian revelation,' neither could he find among them anything proving his belief in the same."³ In fact, it seems very little is required to prove Washington a Christian.

I mean the fact that he continually refers to divine providence, God, and the importance of religion—and that he did all this while going to a Christian church and raising a family with a quite pious Christian wife—means he was a Christian.⁴

Oh really? So one cannot believe in God unless one is Christian? I'm sure there are a few Jews, Muslims and Unitarians who would take exception to that view. Deism, a popular religious philosophy of Washington's day, espoused a deep and abiding belief in God, but rejected organized religion as the instrument of man's relationship to that God. Even if we take as truth the assertions of George Washington's granddaughter that "In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition,"⁵ it doesn't prove much. Sleeping in a garage does not make you a car. Attending church does not make you a Christian.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that Martha was a very devout Christian. The supposition that a man cannot be married to a devout Christian woman without himself being devout is specious at best. My own mother is a very devout Mormon. My father is Mormon on paper only. He attended church services with the family regularly when I was a child, but his attendance is rather sporadic these days. Could it be he went to church to support his wife in her beliefs, though he had (and still has) little use for those beliefs himself? Could it be he saw no point in creating disharmony in the minds of his children regarding their religious upbringing? Washington's granddaughter also says, "No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect."⁶ Well, I don't recall my father even farting loudly in church, much less being a disruptive presence. When I attend services at any congregation, I always show respect for the beliefs of those in attendance. Showing respect and maintaining a reverent aspect do not equate to belief.

Washington's own diaries reveal attendance patterns less than regular or consistent. ^7,8 Washington's granddaughter also states he never knelt during services, but remained standing.⁹ Doesn't sound especially devout to me. In fact that sounds like he's making a statement.

It was the man's character, reflecting the lived-acceptance of the truths revealed by Christ, which enabled him to manage these types of great difficulties that the new nation encountered. It is such characters of men, imperfect still, which lie at the heart of America's political tradition.⁹

Once again, being a man of character and integrity is not the exclusive domain of Christians. In some circles it is not even taken as a given that Christianity promotes virtue. Several prominent men of Washington's day, Thomas Pain and Thomas Jefferson among them, decried the established religions as "...no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."¹⁰ If, on the other hand, we take a more charitable view, and contemplate the possibility that virtue and personal integrity are "truths revealed by Christ," does that mean all men before the time of Christ were unprincipled, dishonest and immoral? Again, I think there are several (much older) cultures and traditions that would take exception to that view.

I recently got around to watching Kung Fu Hustle, the latest popular import from China. It is the story of a young man, marked by a monk in his youth as a master, but who takes some time reaching his potential and, in fact, spends a fair amount of time lost and unable to find success in anything. His transformation from debased street con to glorified hero is triggered by a confrontation with the ultimate killer, "The Beast," a man with no morality and no honor, who exists only to kill or be killed. The hero is given a beating that would have killed any normal man. Through his innate ability to heal quickly, he recovers, the extreme nature of the damage having unlocked his chi, or his gifts. After his "rebirth," he confronts his adversary and eventually conquers him in battle. The Beast's nature is not changed, however, until the moment our hero forgives him and offers to teach him the skills that were used to best him. The Beast then falls to the ground and calls him Master.

Does this ring any bells? Is someone going to try and tell me that Christian teachings have penetrated China's culture? Or perhaps suggest that it was a movie made with America in mind and thus Christian principles were put into the film to increase its appeal in foreign markets? Or are the ideas of a good and evil, a savior or hero triumphing over evil and bringing peace to mankind, mercy and forgiving one's enemies universal to human experience and thought?

These virtues, inspired by the profound animation of Christianity, make it possible for a country based on self-government to succeed.¹¹

And yet Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan all seem to be doing a passable job and they haven't even converted yet.

Please spare me any of the usual nonsense from the right about being hostile toward religion. It is true I have little use for organized religion. My own rational processes have brought me closer to Thomas Jefferson than Billy Graham in that regard. I tend to view the Bible more as historical fiction than divine revelation. On the other hand, I am certainly not an atheist. In fact, I could most accurately be described as Deist. I do have a deep and abiding belief in God. Believe it or not, I would rather see greater expression of religious belief in this country and greater tolerance of different religious views than sweeping it all under the rug in the name of political correctness. Offense is borne of the receiver not the messenger. We would all do well to lighten up.

I probably would not care so much if "Christian values" had not been used to justify feudalism, slavery and the oppression of women and continues to be used to justify attempts to intrude into the private lives of U.S. citizens, to create manifestly ineffective public policy (the war on drugs and safe sex education to name two), to ensure homosexual relationships remain second class, and as the apparently sole basis for political appointments.