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.
2"Proof that Washington was a Christian?" Valley Forge FAQ at ushistory.org
3Steiner, Franklin, "George Washington, The Vestryman Who Was Not A Communicant," The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents From Washington To F.D.R., 1936, reproduced at positivieatheism.org
4"Scof", Comments on "The 'Christian Nation' crowd and Natural Rights:", October 17th, 2005 at 12:21 am
5"George Washington, a Christian?" christiananswers.net
6Ibid.
7Remsburg, John E., "Six Historic Americans," 1906, infidels.org
8Steiner, Franklin, "George Washington, The Vestryman Who Was Not A Communicant," The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents From Washington To F.D.R., 1936, reproduced at positivieatheism.org
9"Scof", Comments on "The 'Christian Nation' crowd and Natural Rights:", October 16th, 2005 at 1:41 am
10Pain, Thomas, The Age of Reason, 1795, reproduced at infidels.org
11"Scof", Comments on "The 'Christian Nation' crowd and Natural Rights:", October 17th, 2005 at 12:21 am
October 18th, 2005 - 20:18
Thanks for the link. Love the footnotes. Very classy.
October 18th, 2005 - 21:03
Well, damn. Thank you, but this wasn’t supposed to be public yet! Hell, I hadn’t even spell checked the thing. Oh, well. I guess we’ll chalk it up to Divine Providence. Of course, it’s projbably just operator error. You will all forgive me if I spend some time tweaking things here and there. If anything substantive changes, I’ll let you know down here.
October 20th, 2005 - 04:35
Well that’s a nice direct style you got there, makes for good reading. As far as our founding principles just happening to coincide with some Christian values, I’d hope you agree that is a bit simplistic. Jon’s got another good post on that, namely the cooperation between Protestant dissidents and Enlightenment rationalists to create a doctrine of natural rights. (Though I’m entertaining the notion that he might be a bit off as regards Aquinas)
In the case of George Washington, we know he was somewhat guarded, so we’ll never have definitive proof of exactly what he believed as regards Christianity. Its still worthwhile to look as he is a singularly important figure in our tradition. Now it is plausible he could’ve been quite a liberal Christian for the time, his love of horticulture could be revealing towards this end. So then this comes down to sources and yes, I really would take the word of a granddaughter who was raised by him over the rather removed Franklin Steiner. Especially so regarding how private Washington was with certain beliefs of his character. His modesty in this regard is probably a good deal responsible for the success of the early years of the country.
Given this modesty we have to take what we can get. The point that “Attending church does not make you a Christian.” is well taken. As a kid I loved getting out early, go watch football with my brothers and Dad. However I’d counter that a grown man who keeps attending Christian churches on a regular basis would pretty much be a signal that someone is a Christian. I think your father’s example does not apply because it is out of context.
“Showing respect and maintaining a reverent aspect do not equate to belief.” & “Once again, being a man of character and integrity is not the exclusive domain of Christians.”
True, but again the particular context of Washington’s life highly suggests belief. He declared the indispensable importance of religious principle in political prosperity, in doing so his modesty again strikes the right tone to keep a young country on the right path. Washington said this, though, in the context of one who regularly attends a Christian Church. His supplications to divine providence and God are in the context of one who for all appearances maintained a Christian household. I have to plead common sense here: He highly valued religious principle in political prosperty. His very character was indispensable in the political prosperity of this country. He regularly attended church and the strength of his character was not formed in a vacuum. Therefore his religious principle, which he highly valued, was Christianity.
I admit George Washington’s modesty in public regarding religion might be borne out of the religious persecution from which so many colonists were escaping. I can see how its disturbing that professed Christians have persecuted other Christians, so how can one speak so righteously of Christian virtue? Well, Christians have done alot of good in the world, but nobody is perfect.
“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?”
This is straying from the point a bit, I’d submit that there are valid criticisms of this Jungian archetype theory of culture and belief.
As far as other countries, to be fair we weren’t talking about Korea, we’re discussing America’s uniqueness. However to be honest, you make a good point. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan have embraced Democracy, which as pointed out at the top of this comment, has Christian roots. I’m also willing to see if history bears out the success of these countries over the long haul, globalism is quite new and the track record of Democracy is short.
October 26th, 2005 - 11:24
Sorry, it’s taken so long to post a response, it’s been a crazy week. I appreciate you taking the time to post at my blog.
“Love they neighbor as thyself.” That’s a Christian value. “Love thine enemies,” is another. Well, it’s something Christ taught, anyway. I don’t remember Christ having anything to say about the proper form of government. In fact, as I recall, he was pretty apolitical. I had read Jon’s other post and found it very…er…enlightening. However, the way I read his article, Christianity had to change to accept the ideas of the Enlightenment. Christianity managed to go some 1600 years without finding human rights in the teachings of Christ.
You say my father is out of context. If you want to discuss context then just because Christianity today universally agrees that Democracy is a good idea, doesn’t mean it did back then. You yourself said it was Protestant dissidents cooperating with the philosophical thinkers of the time, to “create a doctrine of human rights.” I have a hard time seeing how Christians get to co-opt democracy as a Christian idea.
Democracy was and is an idea people who happened to be Christian thought was a good idea, an idea whose time had come. I will admit it was awful sweet of Christians to give other people permission to believe as they choose. Sure was a big switch from papal bulls giving kings permission to enslave non-believers. Once again, however, probably the result of minority groups being persecuted by the main Christian body.
It seems to me you can only claim as Christian those things upon which all Christians can agree, things like Christ as the Son of God and Savior and Redeemer of mankind, charity for your fellow man, and fidelity within marriage for example. Otherwise, it’s an Episcopal value, or a Southern Baptist value or a Westboro Baptist Church value. Hmmm…that puts charity on pretty shaky ground.
As for Washington, was he Christian? I suppose there is no way to ever know for certain. All we have are letters and diaries of his and of other people on the subject. He’s not around to ask anymore. Like all collections of the written word, they are open to interpretation. His granddaughter seems to believe he was. Pastors of the congregations he attended seem to think he wasn’t. One can chose which writings one will quote based on the assumption one wants to prove.
As for Jungian archetypes, I am not a student of philosophy or psychiatry. I know enough that when you say Jungian, you are referring to the theories of Carl Jung who was a contemporary of Freud. I’ve started reading the article you referenced, but I haven’t had time to finish it. Based on what I’ve read, I’m certainly not Freudian: I don’t see religion as a treatable, infantile mental process. I’d have to read more about Jung, but I’m not sure I buy his theory of archetypes either.
I will eventually get back to your article. I’ve heard Satinover speak before, and I can’t exactly be described as a fan. I am, nevertheless, curious. In the mean time, I’m not sure it’s relevant. You are giving me way too much credit. I was simply pointing out remarkable similarities to Christian doctrines that I noticed in a Chinese film. China which is not now, nor has it ever been, a Christian nation: not religiously, not politically, not demographically.
Yes, people who are Christian have done good things, but so have people who are Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist. People who are Christian have also done some really horrendous things, but then so have people who are Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist. So it would seem to me that the belief system to which one adheres is only one factor in assessing greatness or goodness. Personal integrity and character seem to have a lot to do with it as well.