Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Given Science's current and superior ability to provide humanity with an understanding of the natural laws of the universe; the founding framers' dependence on reason was IMHO an optimal approach for their time. Perfectly rational, and clearly superior to depending on "divine revelation" and/or religious dogma.

Given the progress we've made in realm of science since that time, the standard we should hold on what is a reasonable belief should be set much higher.

So while I continue to have the greatest admiration for our founding framers' approach and personal beliefs given the period they lived; I continue to be perplexed that the religious right would somehow glean that these men would hold the same beliefs if they were alive today given what we've learned subsequent to their time on earth. That is an exercise in futility where reason stands against them given most of the framers' appetite for developing their beliefs rather than defending old dogmas.

Posted by: Michael Heath | March 14, 2008 9:40 AM

In his book The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, David L. Holmes argues that many of the founders were "Christian Deists," which he defines as a form of deism which is heavily influenced by Christianity. He supports this argument through quotes and evidence from their personal lives. He counts someone as being more a Christian Deist if they tend to use deistic rather than Christian terms for God (a good example would, ironically, be the quotes offered by Waldman for Washington!), if they didn't believe in the incarnation, if they didn't believe in miracles, etc.

None was 100% consistent in their behavior or in the material they left behind, but given the social and personal contexts in which they lived, it would be hard to expect otherwise. If someone like Wes can be found regularly using orthodox Christian language about Jesus and God, how can a person leaning strongly towards Deism and living in a strongly Christian society be much different? Very strict Deism might be incompatible with belief in a benevolent, interested deity, but how many people adopted the strictest form of Deism? How many even had the realistic option?

It's a mistake, I think, to regard Deism as nothing more than the strictest form it can take; deism was more a theological or philosophical tendency that appeared in varying degrees with different people. Some people "went all the way" with it, but far more relied on it to heavily moderate the traditional Christian beliefs they were raised with and would never have been able to get away from.

Posted by: Austin Cline | March 14, 2008 10:44 AM

Ed - I thought that deists, who believe in a supernatural being/power were theists. They all believe in some sort of supernatural thing that is "higher" than them. The only difference is that some theists believe their god(s) interact with the world, although that is only a hard-and-fast rule. Is there some difference, or are you just using it in a narrower sense than that?

Posted by: Badger3k | March 14, 2008 11:42 AM

Wes stated:

"Anyways, I tend to be skeptical of arguments that say "here's a quote from so-and-so that mentions God, therefore he believed in God." I'm an atheist in the Dawkins-vein, but if you made a list of quotes from me when I'm talking to my family, you'd think I was a Christian. Why? Because I adopt their language in order to avoid creating unnecessary acrimony and also because I know it makes communication with them smoother. I'd be rather irked if someone recorded my talk about Jesus and God with my grandmother and then tried to use it to prove I believe in Jesus and God."

I think this is an excellent illustration of a good point. In a climate where there was so much societal pressure to be "Christian" outward behavior or rthetoric in public was probably not the best way to gauge where someone was coming from. I would think that especially in political circles one would have to be seen in some sense "a good Christian man" to be elected back then.

It is the same today. That is why people are so paranoid about Barak's middle name. In many ways, we still have a "Christian Society" in much of this country. I never realized this until I visited the West and the Bible Belt. If a person got up and said they did not believe in God they could not get elected today either I would think.(This is wrong I think too if it is the best person for the job)

I think in the most general sense that both "Christianity" and "Science or Reason" have brought both great additions to Western Civilization as we know it and great harm. Neither is inherintely bad. It is what people choose to do with it. One nut does something in the name of Christianity and so lets throw it all out. One nut uses Science and the progress of man to take over Europe and we say throw it all out on the other side.(Hitler used religion too I know) I think it more rational to examine it all and hold onto what is good. Otherwise, you have what happened in the French Revolution where anything even associated with the church was destroyed and caous ensued.

In very general terms, I think the biggest problem that most people who really believe in Science and progress have with Christianity is the Apocalyptic teachings.(Maybe moralism too) The teaching that things will only get worse. This is what spawns the what Frankie Shaffer called anti-American stance of the Religious Right. I happen to one who thinks it will get better for mankind and that Science has been and will be one of the biggest avenues toward that. I am just not willing to elimate the transcendance, design, or the supernatural in that process.

Jon Rowe stated:

"What is unfair is when either the secular left or the religious right try to define one term broadly and the other narrowly to "capture" each Founder in its own group."

I think this is where the difference in politics and ideology comes in. A good pragmatist curbs his ideology to make compromise so things can get done. So to look at politics stances to try and determine one's ideology I think would be hard. I think it is wise to step back and look at things like who influenced them from their writings. When I did this I started to see Ed's point in all this and why he vehemently opposed guys like Barton and D James Kennedy.

There was a good article in the New York Times book review about the difference between us and Europe in this. It said we tend to celebrate the pragmatist here that brought the groups together where as in Europe ideology is much more valued. I think the bottom line is that this era of human history when the Constitution was written was known for the overthrow of old institutions. The main one of which was the Ecclesiastical Authorities. I say amen. If I have to chose between religious tyranny and a secular state that would in its zeal to stop that killed me I would take the latter. Why? The former would kill me too and do it with less mercy. I hope to never have to choose but the ideology cults gone mad seems to be reeled in quicker than tyrannical religion and its Hieracrchy.

I would argue that the pragmatism of the likes of Jefferson and company kept us from what happened in France. I would also say the same thing about Roosevelt and Hitler. I would also argue that we need the same spirit of compromise to ensure that neither the Ecclesiastical authorities or secular ideology cults takes over now or into the future. There is a reason that American did not go the way of France, Russia, and later Germany. Ofcourse I will say it is God's hand on us. But if I put that aside and just use secular reasoning( I think both are important) I would say that our ability to have unity in our diversity has saved us and will continue too. Free speech is the lynch pin that keeps it all together.

Good post well written and equally good points Wes and Jon.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 14, 2008 12:30 PM

"All of the key founders clearly expressed their belief in an active, provident, benevolent and personal God rather than the distant watchmaker god of deism."

As I noted in the thread though, there are plenty of deists who believed in a God that judged souls and an afterlife, something that Waldman treats as being incompatible with deism. For instance, Herbert of Cherbury believed in the judgment of souls, and it would be hard to argue that he wasn't Deist, seeing as he's often credited as the father of Deism in England. The only really consistent qualification for deism I can think of is the rejection of revealed religion: i.e. God speaking to mankind through supernatural events. This is something many of the main founders did hold to to varying degrees. The real issue is whether or not a belief in some sort of cosmic fate or the intervention of God to make just things happen sometimes falls under this or not.

I think the main problem here is the fuzziness of the term "deism" more than anything else.

Theistic Rationalist solves that problem nicely, and lets us simply not bother with trying to argue over Deism.

Posted by: Bad | March 14, 2008 1:12 PM

Gary Wills described pretty much all the founders as deists. But his understanding of the term isn't so much that it entails a dogmatic belief in a watchmaker god so much as its a form of god-ism believing that god can only be understood through reason and being skeptical of supernatural interventions and what not.

The Jefferson quote he provides would seem to indicate Jefferson used deism to mean something similar to monotheism.

Posted by: Hume's Ghost | March 14, 2008 1:52 PM

"It seems to me that a minimum requirement for Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ."

Why: is the minimum requirement for being a Kantian a belief in the divinity of Kant?

I say: let people define themselves as Christians as they please as long as they explain what they mean by that.

This business of bickering about who is what is really all about who has the most advantageous position from which to equivocate (i.e. use definitions to create sloppy arguments, mixing implied connotations that aren't actually universal). If we could just chuck the big-tent terms and discuss exactly what it was that this or that person believed, and then what implications those specific ideas had, then we could have a far more sensible and productive debate.

The problem is that it would take longer and for many positions be harder to sustain their claims.

Posted by: Bad | March 14, 2008 2:15 PM

"If we could just chuck the big-tent terms and discuss exactly what it was that this or that person believed, and then what implications those specific ideas had, then we could have a far more sensible and productive debate."

I am all for that! But hard to do in this sour climate on this issue.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 14, 2008 2:35 PM

Bad

"It seems to me that a minimum requirement for Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ."

Why: is the minimum requirement for being a Kantian a belief in the divinity of Kant?

I say: let people define themselves as Christians as they please as long as they explain what they mean by that.

This business of bickering about who is what is really all about who has the most advantageous position from which to equivocate (i.e. use definitions to create sloppy arguments, mixing implied connotations that aren't actually universal).

Well said. Those who try to establish requirements to be met by anyone who wishes to identify him/herself a Christian are probably confusing Christianity with church affiliation. The fundamentalists did exactly that: write out a list of fundamental beliefs about Jesus and God that they insist must be recognized as the only correct beliefs, so that only those who believe correctly may claim to be followers of Jesus. Adherence to these fundamental beliefs are required for membership in their churches, and they often consider those from other churches not to be really real Christians.

I'm a Christian, a person who chooses to order my life by following Jesus, but many of my own ideas about Jesus and God are very far from those on the list of supposedly correct fundamentals.

I like the term "theistic rationalist" so long as it is not used in direct contradiction to the term "Christian." While one may be a theistic rationalist without being a Christian, it is also true that a person's Christianity may take the form of theistic rationalism.

I think one of the clearest things one can say about the founding fathers is that, in general, while some of them may have considered themselves Christians, followers of Jesus, their beliefs would not be considered Christian by the standards of modern fundamentalists. Many of their beliefs overall can, and are, however, considered Christian by many mainstream and/or liberal modern Christians, like the UU member mentioned by Jon Rowe.

Posted by: JuliaL | March 14, 2008 3:46 PM

By the way, atheism is definitely not the same thing as adeism. I consider myself both an atheist and a deist, since I find the concept of a personal god logically impossible (as well as all the other arguments against it), but do believe in some unified fundamentally real substance constituting reality.

Posted by: Chuck | March 14, 2008 4:05 PM

Jon,

"Though the point you make, that "Deism" had many variations, can also be made of Christianity."

I agree! It's fair to say that the founders were largely or generally "Christian" in a loose sense of the term. The problem is, we are saying this in a social/cultural context where "Christian" tends to be defined too narrowly to include them. We may be saying it in a debate context where "Christian" is certainly being defined too narrowly to include them.

It's unfortunate, but to simply call them "Christians" in the contexts where we'd be saying much of anything would, in effect, be giving Christian Nationalists an easy argument. We have to qualify it heavily. I like "Christian-Deist" over "theistic rationalists" because I think it communicates more, even if you've never heard the term: it tells us something about the inclusion of Christian beliefs and/or perspectives alongside deistic philosophy and/or attitudes. They would have thought of themselves as Christian in some sense, so using the word just seems respectful or fair.

Bad,

My understanding of the use of "Deist" is the same as yours: rejection of revealed religion at a bare minimum, but just how "interventionist" and active the god is varies. Deists believe in "natural revelation," in the sense that whatever is true about God can be discerned through the study of nature - since nature was created by God, we should be able to learn something about God through it. This also makes Deism a form of monotheism, though a particularly modern and rationalist sort.

"is the minimum requirement for being a Kantian a belief in the divinity of Kant?"

The difference is that "Christ" is a title, not a name. Christ is "messiah," so unless you believe that Jesus was a messiah of some sort - especially a Jewish messiah - there's a bit of a contradiction between what you believe and what your chosen label describes. You could be a Jesusist or Jesusian without creating such a conflict, but Christian is a problem.

I don't agree with setting "bare minimums" for adherents of other belief systems to follow, but I start to pull back from this when it comes to what a chosen name communicates.

I don't think you can be a Marxist without following at least some of Marx's ideas - a wholesale rejection of his ideas just doesn't work, in my opinion. I'm not going to presume to say what parts a Marxist absolutely has to accept, though. Ditto for being a Kantian.

Ditto for being a Christian, in fact - if a person doesn't accept everything attributed to Jesus, that doesn't make them less of a "Christian" in my eyes. Not accepting that Jesus was, in some sense, "Christ," does make a difference in my opinion. I hesitate to go so far as to declare "you aren't a real Christian" in such cases, but I have trouble accepting that "Christian" amounts to a meaningful label in such cases - and I'd question it's use.

Posted by: Austin Cline | March 14, 2008 5:09 PM

That's why I think Gregg Frazer's phrase theistic rationalist is the best description for the views of those key founders.

On my first reading I thought that you were arguing that the term theistic rationalist should be applied to the founding fathers but see that you narrow it to some "key founders" not delineated in the post. Maybe if I were a more regular reader I'd know this - sorry. Consequently, I think that it would help the general reader if future review(s)/posts would more clearly delineate between the whole of the founding fathers and specific individuals being referenced, such as "key founders".

One question that arises for me is whether you would still use the term deist when describing any of the founders?

Also, I thought that Waldman's post was confusing and potentially misleading, starting with the titles: 1) Fallacy #1: The Founders Weren't Deists, implying all founders, and 2) the subtitle, Liberal Fallacy #1: Most founding fathers were Deists or secular. Is he covering all or most of the founding fathers? Is the fallacy that they were/weren't deists [and seculars]? Obviously he's trying to set up a dichotomy to solve but I think he'd be better off not going for clever but just saying what he has to say. I hope his book makes a more substantive argument than to use public statements. Citations would be good too, I'll assume the book includes them.

My two cents worth on deism v. theistic rationalist:

I think that labeling Jefferson, for instance, a theistic rationalist implies something that isn't well supported unless the term theistic is redefined from it's generally accepted modern use (generally inferring an adherence to, at a minimum, a belief in biblical non-materialism, including miracles, and the divinity of Jesus). The term theistic rationalist to me conjures an image of the Vatican scientists rather than Jefferson.

Adopting a new single term leaves the problem of differentiation as to what degree theist they were. Both deism and theism imply a role for a God/god-figure of some sort but make significant relevant distinctions. Even among the "key founders," regardless of which are listed, there are distinctions to be made that fall outside of a single static term, especially if you look at the complexity of the times, then and now, and the whole of their life's record.

If we're looking for a single term that would be common to all or certainly the vast majority of the founders, maybe a better way of looking at it is that the lawyers/politicians/leaders at the time of the revolution and founding were principally and simply rationalist pragmatists. Rationalists that were inevitably influenced to greater and lesser extents by the prevailing theisms as well as the secular "enlightened" thinking of their time. Some may have given public deference with a vague and limited or even no personal adherence to or belief in any overt theistic system. Some may have been devoutly theistic and certainly some were devoutly Christian in the sense that they believed in the God of the Bible and the divinity of the Christ Jesus.

Theist or theistic, regardless of preceding modifier(s), has implications that I'm pretty sure at least some of the founders (key or otherwise) would have been uncomfortable with as a label.

Besides, as far as the "culture wars" go, we've all heard of theocracy as a threat to liberties but we never hear about deiocracies at all. [insert smiley face]

Posted by: jimmiraybob | March 14, 2008 6:11 PM

Taz -

It seems to me that a minimum requirement for Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ.

Why? I think that you are focusing all too much on the dogmatic notions of Christianity (of which there are several rather distinctive subsects that are somewhat to extremely incompatible) and missing a host of beliefs that fall outside that realm. Though I will not try to claim that Jefferson was a Christian, it is not unreasonable to think that he had a strong affinity for many aspects of the faith.

I have rejected the notion of revealed religion for years. Lately I have been more reticent to identify as a Christian, but as a label it's not entirely inaccurate. And the balance is philosophical, rather than dogmatic - there's nothing at all wrong with that. I can identify well with the idea of Christian Deists, because it bloody well describes me well, though theistic rationalist would also be an accurate assessment.

Jon Rowe -

I think you make some very reasonable and important points. One of my favorite examples, is Ben Franklin - mainly because he's one of my greatest heroes and favorite historical figure. He considered himself a deist, in spite of the fact that he held views that were decidedly antithetical to the modern usage of the term deist. He would have been (and often was) perfectly comfortable in many Christian congregations.

I have a Unitarian-Universalist reader (who happens to be a very distinguished attorney) who insists that Jefferson and Adams merit the label "Christian" as do present day UUs.

I know a whole lot of UU's who would take serious exception to that notion. While I think that Adams and Jefferson, (not to mention many others) probably merit the label Universalists, that does not begin to translate to Christian. Probably a third of the UU's I know are avowed atheists. Only a very few would accept the label Christian (or christian) and that secondary to the label Unitarian-Universalists.

I actually think the notion that Jefferson was a Universalist is consistent with his discussion of religion, though I am unaware of him ever referring to himself thus. I also think that labeling him a christian isn't entirely inaccurate either. We're talking about the author/compiler of the Jefferson bible. Obviously he rejected the divinity of Christ and the miraculous, but just as obviously, he had a strong affinity for the bible.

Posted by: DuWayne | March 14, 2008 6:22 PM

jimmiraybob -

Theism does not necessitate a belief in revealed religion, merely the belief in an interventionist God, which Jefferson most certainly seems to have believed in, based on his writings. Though in these modern times, theism generally refers to those who accept revealed religion (whether it comes from the Christian bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Apochrypha or other religious texts), but that is probably mostly because there aren't a lot of vocal theists who don't believe in revealed religion. I tend towards the modern usage of Deism, but consider myself a theist anyways.

Chuck -

So we can agree it's all semantics once you reject a personal God and all traces of the supernatural.

In one sense, it is all semantics, whether you reject a personal God and all traces of the supernatural or not. In the sense I think your trying to use it, no it's not. There are a large number of distinctions left, especially in the realm of deism. Or more to the point, it is semantics, but not so reasonably dismissed.

A deist (and some theists) may believe in the strong possibility of something you would describe as supernatural, but reject the label of supernatural. I for one, believe in the possibility and even likelihood of things that you would probably call supernatural. But I absolutely believe that if indeed those things do exist, they are as "natural" as gravity. Even as I reject the notion of revealed religion, I reject the notion that there exists anything outside the realm of the natural world, that anything is or should be exempt from the same study and investigation that we give biology, physics or any other scientific study.

I believe that if their exists a God, said God is a human construct. I also believe that a spiritual duality with our physical body is rather likely, thus it is quite possible that if humans did create a God, it is quite plausible that said God could have a similar spiritual existence. I believe that it is equally possible that what I perceive as the interventions of a God in my life, are actually the result of the spiritual aspects of me, interacting with the world around me. I also accept that I could just be plain wrong and the atheists really have something, I don't think it's likely, but I accept that it just might be.

Do I really fit the narrowest, common definitions of any of the terms used in this post and thread? Not a single one. But there are a lot of them that are not entirely inaccurate when applied to me. I have even heard people define atheism in such a way that my beliefs would fit, mainly from folks who prefer to call themselves atheists, even if it doesn't really fit. This is in part, because they do not feel as comfortable identifying themselves by other labels that might be far more accurate, but carry implications they prefer to disassociate themselves from.

Posted by: DuWayne | March 14, 2008 7:06 PM

Excellent discussion, thanks to all. As Jon Rowe and JuliaL have pretty well covered my take on things, I'll refrain from comment this time around. This thread is the reason I love this blog. Thanks to Ed for hosting the whole motley crew.

Kurt

Posted by: kehrsam | March 14, 2008 8:15 PM

"It seems to me that a minimum requirement for Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ."

Why: is the minimum requirement for being a Kantian a belief in the divinity of Kant? I say: let people define themselves as Christians as they please as long as they explain what they mean by that.

Posted by: Taz | March 14, 2008 9:44 PM

You are offering your own "fundamental" as a definition of Christianity, which I don't criticize you for.

I am most definitely not offering my "fundamental" as a "definition of Christianity." In fact, I denied this very explicitly when I wrote that I would not declare "you aren't a real Christian" in cases where people reject Jesus as "Christ." All I am doing is pointing out that if people pick a label that means something, but then adopt belief contrary to that meaning, a contradiction is created - a contradiction which leads me to question the meaningfulness of the original label.

I don't question the beliefs in this - I accept that they genuinely believe whatever it is they say they believe. It's merely whether the label in question is an accurate and meaningful label to apply to those beliefs. I'd find it curious if bothered anyone. A person so concerned with ensuring possession of a label for themselves strikes me as someone more concerned with tribal identity than the underlying beliefs. Much of the dispute over who is a "real" or "false" Christian is at least as much tribalism as it is about theology - people trying to narrow tribal lines to just include their group or broaden the lines to ensure that they are members, too.

Would a "real" Christian care very much whether they were identified or labeled as a Christian? Should they? It might be argued that the more a "Christian" worries about the label - the more time they spend fiddling with definitions and language and theology in order to make the concept narrower or broader - the more they show that the label is more important than the beliefs.

Posted by: Austin Cline | March 15, 2008 9:39 AM

Chuck -

I'm not sure what you mean by God as a human construct,...

I mean more than one possibility. There is the possibility that God is nothing more than an idea that people have. There is also the possibility that that as partly spiritual constructs ourselves, we create/d God/s that are actual spiritual constructs, independent of ourselves. I also accept that what I perceive as God, may well be the spiritual aspect of myself, interacting with the world around me.

Duality is a rather common descriptive for the notion that people (and some believe all living things) are both a physical being and a spiritual being.

Taz -

Others rather got onto it well, but as it was addressed to me...

Can you name one recognized Christian sect that does not believe Jesus was divine?

Who the hell is talking about "recognized" sects? I am talking about personal beliefs, personal beliefs that many, regardless of sect, actually believe.

If you're going to define as Christian anyone who agrees with some of the "teachings" of Jesus, then you've rendered the word almost meaningless.

How so? It means something very specific to me, while I accept that it means something very different to others. That it doesn't wrap it all into a nice, consistent package for others, really isn't my concern.

You might just as well say Jefferson was a Muslim.

Again, the only claim that I would make, based on his own words, is that Jefferson was a theist. Further speculation, would also lend me to believe that his beliefs were probably more consistent with that of the Universalists of his time, than with Christianity.

I would also however, point to the fact that he took the Christian bible and "fixed" it, according to his beliefs. He didn't do that with the Koran or the Torah. While I won't argue that this means he was a Christian, it is certainly indicative of his affinity for the Christian bible.

What common thread do they have if not belief in the divinity of Christ?

How about a belief that Jesus had a lot of really great things to teach?

I should also note that while I find the notion highly unlikely, I don't deny the possibility that Jesus was divine.

I think the problem here is that you want to wrap it into a nice little package that is easily defined. You want it to be simple and if people don't fit into the simple, then they obviously aren't what they claim to be. People are not that simple.

For centuries, people who have no real belief in any religion, have sat in churches and even taken leadership positions in their respective bodies of worship. While atheism has become far more acceptable today than ever before, there are still people who do that. That extreme aside, there are also a lot of people who accept and believe some aspects of a faith, without accepting it all wholesale. This includes people like me, who don't even accept the notion of revealed religion at all, but who never the less have some sort of theistic belief and who follow a particular faith.

I often attend a Christian church. I have even been in leadership positions in that church. On any given Sunday one might attend that church, it is likely that they will hear music that I wrote, being used in worship. There are probably some there who would be shocked to learn that I reject the dogma of our church, though I am very open about what I don't believe. Even those who are aware (which is most of the congregation) of my beliefs, still label me a Christian, probably for a variety of reasons.

Posted by: DuWayne | March 15, 2008 11:36 AM

DuWayne-
Again, the only claim that I would make, based on his own words, is that Jefferson was a theist. Then we agree. I was arguing against an overly broad definition of Christian. For example: How about a belief that Jesus had a lot of really great things to teach? I think Jesus had a lot of really great things to teach, so am I an Atheist-Christian? Seems odd. Not to mention the fact that there are about a hundred other historical figures I feel that way about.

Posted by: Taz | March 15, 2008 12:17 PM

Taz,

I think you may have misunderstood something I said. Sorry not to be clearer.

I agree with you that an overly broad definition of "Christian" is to be avoided. At the same time, I object to adding a list, however brief, of specific fundamental religious beliefs required to qualify for the term.

I didn't mean to suggest that you had actually claimed that a belief in the divinity of Christ is the one and only minimum requirement for being a Christian. I was pointing out that "if" one made that claim, it would make the meaning of "Christian" so broad as to include many non-Christians such as my Hindu friends. Therefore, including "belief in the divinity of Christ" as a fundamental part of the definition of "Christian" appears to require the addition of at least one other fundamental, the notion that Jesus' divinity is unique. I asked you about that.

You answered, if I understand you correctly, that you are not willing to add that second fundamental requirement. So, that leaves us with a definition of Christian that excludes some people who say they are Christians and includes a very large number of people (perhaps millions)who deny they are Christians.

My personal definition does indeed relate to Jefferson, which is why I offered it.

In an 1803 letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Jefferson said, "I am a Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

It seems to me clearest and simplest to take the man at his word, and add the note that fundmentalists today, insisting that there is a list (however long or short) of specific beliefs about Jesus that one must hold in order to qualify as a Christian, would almost certainly deny that Jefferson qualifies as a Christian.

So, Taz, DuWayne, kehrsam, and Austin Cline, how about this as a working definition: A Christian is a person who is sincerely attached to Jesus' doctrines in preference to all others. (That definition is what I mean when I say I am a Christian, and it also seems to relieve Taz of the strange burden of being called an atheist-Christian.)

Posted by: JuliaL | March 15, 2008 2:21 PM

JuliaL -

You answered, if I understand you correctly, that you are not willing to add that second fundamental requirement. So, that leaves us with a definition of Christian that excludes some people who say they are Christians and includes a very large number of people (perhaps millions)who deny they are Christians.

t seems to me clearest and simplest to take the man at his word, and add the note that fundmentalists today, insisting that there is a list (however long or short) of specific beliefs about Jesus that one must hold in order to qualify as a Christian, would almost certainly deny that Jefferson qualifies as a Christian.

That definition is what I mean when I say I am a Christian, and it also seems to relieve Taz of the strange burden of being called an atheist-Christian.

Posted by: Taz | March 15, 2008 2:59 PM

Sorry about the double post. I may be an atheist-christian but I am NOT a typist.

Posted by: Taz | March 15, 2008 3:03 PM

Austin Cline wrote:

This also makes Deism a form of monotheism, though a particularly modern and rationalist sort.

That's an interesting take that I hadn't considered before. There still might be room for a polytheistic deist, wouldn't there? It seems weird, and I'm not really sure what that belief would be, but I can't really think of a reason why a deist couldn't think there was more than one deity.

Also, I agree with you and Bad about the terms deist and theist. Primarily because I think the distinction between belief and non-belief is better captured using the terms atheism and theism, for the simple fact that the particulars of the various beliefs are not relevant in that context. Perhaps that's just an artifact of being an atheist, but it makes much more sense to me.

I suppose this leaves us at a bit of a loss for broadly describing the difference between Ed's deists and theists.

Posted by: Leni | March 15, 2008 4:00 PM

This is an intriguing discussion and I will have to get the book and read it. However, as great as it is to try and categorize the religious beliefs of the Founders in a meaningful way, the most relevant thing to me is how their beliefs impacted the structure of the nation they set up. Secularists today demand an absolute wall between religion and government that is so strict that I would argue that it becomes an infringement on the beliefs of religious Americans. For instance, the cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego was almost removed simply because a single man protested and sued, even though the people of San Diego voted overwhelmingly that they wanted the cross to stay. While the secularist might see this as perfectly correct under how they interpret the First Amendment, I see it as an infringement on the religious beliefs of the community of San Diego - and something that the Founders of our country would find absolutely unjustified. One man can override the wishes of the community? I see no reason why San Diegans can't have their cross if they want it. I don't see how our Founders would have an issue with it either; after all, even Jefferson attended church services in the Virginia statehouse. Church services were held in the US Capitol as well. Secularists today would go nuts over something like that, yet our Founding generation saw no conflict between that and the First Amendment. How is it that judges today can discern conflict between some instances of religious expression and the First Amendment where the Founders themselves would likely see no conflict? It seems that the apparent meaning of the First Amendment has changed over the years.
What is most meaningful to me is how our Founders viewed religion and what they believed its role should be in the nation they were forming. Understanding that helps us to understand where they were coming from when they drafted the Constitution and helps the current generation to align to the constitutional compass, so to speak.

Posted by: mroberts | March 16, 2008 1:22 AM

It seems to me that a minimum requirement for Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ.

Marxists don't have to believe in the divinity of Marx. Why should the word "Christian" be different? It seems to me that the minimum requirement for a Christian is to believe in Christ. Jefferson beleived in (and greatly admired) the man named Jesus. That makes him a Christian.

That he self-identified as a Christian is also an important criteria for admitting Jefferson as a Christian. Christianity is full of people who are eager to separate the "true" christians from the "false" Christians. If we accepted every dogmatic requirement of every single Christian sect, nobody would be Christian. The only sensible criterion for whether someone is a Christian, in my books, is whether they identify themselves as christian.

Posted by: ed rowland | March 16, 2008 12:53 PM

I see it as an infringement on the religious beliefs of the community of San Diego

Posted by: Taz | March 16, 2008 9:10 PM

What do you mean "believe in Christ?" You're arguing against having to believe in his divinity, so I assume you mean "believe he existed." Are you saying anyone who believes the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth existed is a Christian?

I myself wouldn't have used the word "believe". I would have phrased it as "It seems to me that the minimum requirement for a Christian is to have faith in their particular interpretation of Christ."

This is very unspecific, I know. But I think that this is what Ed Rowland's point was. I agree with his last sentence completely:

The only sensible criterion for whether someone is a Christian, in my books, is whether they identify themselves as christian.

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 16, 2008 10:41 PM

mroberts -

And how is one man telling an entire city they cannot have their cross anything different? How is it that having the cross is "imposing", yet one man demanding it be taken down not "imposing"?

Posted by: Taz | March 17, 2008 10:44 AM

Taz and tomh,

You both have completely ignored my main point at the same time that you (at least in tomh's case) accuse me of being clueless about the Constitution. The central issue here is the meaning of the First Amendment, and a way to shed some light on the meaning is to see how it was applied in the Founding Era. So, I will ask you both again: if the people of the Founding Era allowed church services in the US Capitol, how is it that a cross on a hill in San Diego is a violation of the First Amendment? Thomas Jefferson even attended church services in the Virginia Statehouse, so he didn't see a conflict here either. Based on this, what justification is there for telling the people of San Diego they cannot have their cross?

Posted by: mroberts | March 17, 2008 5:06 PM

mroberts wrote:
You both have completely ignored my main point ...

Your main point is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if Jefferson preached the gospel from the oval office, that wouldn't change the meaning of the First Amendment. Besides, as far as I can tell, the gigantic Christian symbol still stands on public land, with some sort of land transfer used to circumvent the First Amendment and a judge's ruling. Is that not the case?

You religious types are really something. Your churches receive billions of dollars in subsidies via tax exemptions, a burden which is directly transferred to taxpayers, your church businesses are exempt from such inconveniences as minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws, not to mention a myriad of other perks, but that's never enough. You're not happy unless you can flout monstrous symbols on public land in the face of every passerby. Some people are never satisfied.

Posted by: tomh | March 17, 2008 9:45 PM

Let's not ignore the second part of the amendment here that says the government is not to obstruct the free exercise of it.

Posted by: Taz | March 18, 2008 2:04 PM

Perhaps some veterans who fought and died for their country aren't Christian and would rather not be memorialized by a cross.

Which is why, since the death of the original plaintiff, (after all, the lawsuit is now in its 19th year), the Jewish War Veterans of the United States have filed a motion for the removal of the Christian symbol. The suit is now against the federal government since the city of San Diego managed to extricate itself and stop wasting taxpayer money on this foolishness by transferring the land to the feds. Of course, it's no more legal for the cross to be on federal land than on city land.

Posted by: tomh | March 18, 2008 3:02 PM

"No offense K of I, but the term "Judeo- Christian" is a bit of a dodge. Most people 50 years ago wouldn't have bothered with the "Judeo" part. And I'm not sure it fits well with the giant cross situation."

Did not know this was a case about a Jewish dude when I commented. The Judeo part is standard evangelical lingo. I relapse sometimes. It was not a comment one way or the other about the Jewish dude or defending anti-semite views that do have a history in this country.

My overall point is the same though. Not everyone that wants to perserve certain American values and culture of the last 200 years is a red neck or religious right supporter. There are legimate logical reasons as why not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 3:45 PM