Founding Fathers and Revisionary Interpretation

[Calvinist4Him]

First I think if would be helpful if we define our terms. By "founding fathers", I am referring to the original authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Founding fathers include historical figures such as: Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. By "revisonary interpretation", I mean interpretation which is independent of the original authors thoughts and intent.

Second I feel the need to make a disclaimer, I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I would like to learn more on this subject, because it seems to be relevant to today. I ordered the book: "Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution" from Amazon.com today. I plan on purchasing the book: "New Views of the Constitution" by John Taylor in the near future.

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights states:

Bill of Rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

© source where applicable

From the following article: http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/enlight/prayer.htm

pbs.org

Supreme Court Ruling: Official prayer in public schools is a violation of the Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Majority Opinion Excerpt

The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Engel v. Vitale was delivered by Justice Hugo Black in 1962. Representing the majority opinion of 5-2, Black wrote:

The religious nature of prayer was recognized by Jefferson, and has been concurred in by theological writers, the United States Supreme court, and State courts and administrative officials, including New York's Commissioner of Education. A committee of the New York legislature has agreed.

The petitioners contend... that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause... We agree with this contention since we think that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

The New York laws officially prescribing the Regent's prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of the Establishment Clause and with the Establishment Clause itself.

Dissenting Opinion Excerpt

Justice potter Stewart wrote:

I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an "official religion" is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.

He continued with excerpts from speeches made by presidents of the United States from Washington to Kennedy that made some sort of reference to God or religion. He also used Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address. On March 4, 1805, President Thomas Jefferson said:

". . . I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

The principles outlined in Engel v. Vitale were extended to a voluntary moment of silence in the 1985 case of Wallace v. Jaffe.

© source where applicable

My thoughts on the Engel v. Vitale case: One one hand I agree with part of the decision that neither the government (Congress), nor the state, should have the authority to impose prayer in public schools. On the other hand, I disagree with the notion that individual teachers in public schools should not have the freedom to resite a prayer with their students. I agree that public school teachers should not have the authority to force students to pray, but that students should have the freedom to decide for theirselves.

Is the Supreme Court ruling in the Engel v. Vitale case, a revisionary interpretation or is it in line with the thoughts and writings of the founding fathers?

[Conductor42]

I don't think their is any rule prohibiting a teacher for praying with his or her students, so long as it is not part of the official class.

[Thomas2003]

My thoughts on the Engel v. Vitale case: One one hand I agree with part of the decision that neither the government (Congress), nor the state, should have the authority to impose prayer in public schools. On the other hand, I disagree with the notion that individual teachers in public schools should not have the freedom to resite a prayer with their students. I agree that public school teachers should not have the authority to force students to pray, but that students should have the freedom to decide for theirselves.

Is the Supreme Court ruling in the Engel v. Vitale case, a revisionary interpretation or is it in line with the thoughts and writings of the founding fathers?

It's much worse than revisionism, it's Treason. Please understand, I do not say that as an emotional laden response, but from simple facts of making war against the foundations of our social order. It's revolutionary and an illegality of the highest order, the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally and has proscribed free exercise of religion in the name of disestablishment.

I've written a bit on this subject matter in other threads, and you'll find something very odd as it flows from the impetus of this presupposition and its predecessor in 1947. In 1954 Congress, for the first time in its history, began regulating religion through the commerce clause as a "non-profit" commercial activity. It's proposes licensure and establishment through voluntary submission.

When the 14th Amendment was established a Congressman named Blaine attempted six times to have it defined in terms of the First Amendment and applied backwards against the States and six times the full Congress rejected it as contrary to the intent of the 14th Amendment. It's purpose was to extend the social liberty of citizenship to the negro, that is all, not to be the foundation of Judicial revolution against the foundations of American jurisprudence.

Our Constitutions, both federal and state, are common law documents - they do not exist in a vacuum. The purpose of the First Amendment was to insure that the federal government could not claim the religious Sovereignty of the King of England in the common law and to chain that claim to the common law itself. It was to prohibit a national denomination of Christianity as the offical denomination of the federal union, not to act detrimental to the free exercise clause. Thus, the federal government could not claim to be "head of the Church." The several States plugging their law directly into the common law have the legal authority to regulate religion in terms of their Constitutions, which were all beneficial and harmonius with Christianity.

"Establishing religion" was to proscribe or prescribe certain tenents, not general assent, and it's not nor was it ever intended to be equalitarian. Other religions were free to exercise their faith in America in concert with the common law and general Christianity - if it was hostile to these things then it is lawful to regulate it, such as the case with Mormonism in the Reynolds v US, 1878, the first "free exercise" case.

In 1947 the Court shifted, upon its own motion and its own claim, from consistent historic law in regards to "establishment" going back to Constantine, and embarked on a new course consistent with a Marxist definition and view of law. No pope, no king, ever acted with such hostility against Christianity itself as this Court has.

[alcibiades]

It's much worse than revisionism, it's Treason. Please understand, I do not say that as an emotional laden response, but from simple facts of making war against the foundations of our social order. It's revolutionary and an illegality of the highest order, the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally and has proscribed free exercise of religion in the name of disestablishment.

I strongly disagree. Your notion as to the motivation for amendment flies in the face of extensive recorded discussion among those who wrote the amendment. It flies in the face of the intellectual context in which it was written, the enlightenment, and it flies in the face of the concept of a government based on pragmatism and secular and not on religion. A large number of the founders were only nominally Christian if that, and were more like deits.

It is clear that they intended that the government and religion be kept apart, and that, certainly no funding for religious institutions be supported.

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. James Madison

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. Benjamin Franklin

And of course, Jefferson's letter was the source of the phrae "separation of church and state".

[technomage]

Hi, Alcibiades,

This is not only a two year-old thread, but Calvinist4Him has not posted here for about a year and a half.

[Glenn P]

It flies in the face of the intellectual context in which it was written, the enlightenment,

This sentence caught my eye.

Can you please explain why it is contrary to the spirit of "the enlightenment" for a teacher to pray with students?

[alcibiades]

This sentence caught my eye.

Can you please explain why it is contrary to the spirit of "the enlightenment" for a teacher to pray with students?

For a teacher in a private environment, probably nothing. I was thinking more of the general notion of separation of church and state.

To my recollection the enlightenment fostered a spirit of reason and reduced the centrality of religion in society. I think this contributed to the impetus to keep religion and the state apart, although there were probably more immediate pragmatic reasons.

I don't think a prayer event organized in a public school is appropriate to our current scociety. Prayer can take place at any time in a persons mind or privately. To me the impetus to organize group prayer is to establish a social message, in some cases not welcome. Having experienced this sort of thing as a kid, I know its more problematic than many think.

[WinterStag]

This sentence caught my eye.

Can you please explain why it is contrary to the spirit of "the enlightenment" for a teacher to pray with students?

Well, one could somewhat wryly state that prayer itself as it pre-supposes a personal, accessible God runs contrary to the spirit enlightenment which generally pre-supposed a deism or agnosticism/atheism.

More to the actual point of the thread though, a lot of the conversation surrounding "original intent" of the 1st amendment as it applies to things like prayer in school tends to ignore a couple of rather important issues:

1) When drafting that amendment a government as expansive and intrusive as our present one is was never envisioned. Which is to say, the drafters had no "original intent" for how the amendment would apply to prayer in federally funded public schools, because no such thing existed at the time and few if any of them would've envisioned the existence of such an institution.

2) The founders themselves were never in perfect agreement of how to apply the amendment, and even individual ones changed positions at various times in their lives. Madison for example was responsible for establishing the tradition of a Chaplain opening sessions of congress with prayer, but would himself later express regret for doing so feeling that it was in fact an "establishment of religion".

[Glenn P]

Well, one could somewhat wryly state that prayer itself as it pre-supposes a personal, accessible God runs contrary to the spirit enlightenment which generally pre-supposed a deism or agnosticism/atheism.

This is, with respect, mere ignorance. The enlightenment presupposed no such thing. Descartes, Berkely, Locke, Kant, ringing any bells? That there have been noteables who were not theists who also held to many enlightenment ideals is true, but it's not a defensible inference from this to say that the enlightenment presupposes non-thesism. It's just untrue.

More to the actual point of the thread though, a lot of the conversation surrounding "original intent" of the 1st amendment as it applies to things like prayer in school tends to ignore a couple of rather important issues:

1) When drafting that amendment a government as expansive and intrusive as our present one is was never envisioned. Which is to say, the drafters had no "original intent" for how the amendment would apply to prayer in federally funded public schools, because no such thing existed at the time and few if any of them would've envisioned the existence of such an institution.

2) The founders themselves were never in perfect agreement of how to apply the amendment, and even individual ones changed positions at various times in their lives. Madison for example was responsible for establishing the tradition of a Chaplain opening sessions of congress with prayer, but would himself later express regret for doing so feeling that it was in fact an "establishment of religion".

Well that may be, but my only objecttion that I intended to go into was what struck me as a very strange claim that the defence of a prayer in school somehow runs contrary to the enlightenment.

[WinterStag]

This is, with respect, mere ignorance. The enlightenment presupposed no such thing. Descartes, Berkely, Locke, Kant, ringing any bells?

Um, yes, and even while some like Locke would not have viewed themselves as Deist, his philosophical treatises formed the basis for Deism. Though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that deism and agnosticism were the ultimate logical conclusion of The Enlightenment and it's emphasis on reason and naturalism rather than it's presupposition.

[Philosophickle]

Um, yes, and even while some like Locke would not have viewed themselves as Deist, his philosophical treatises formed the basis for Deism. Though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that deism and agnosticism were the ultimate logical conclusion of The Enlightenment and it's emphasis on reason and naturalism rather than it's presupposition.

So you have Locke vs. the the list Jack produced? And the only way deism and agnosticism can be the logical conclusion of the Enlightenment is if there are premises from which that conclusion would follow.

So please, produce the premises of the Enlightenment.

[Glenn P]

Um, yes, and even while some like Locke would not have viewed themselves as Deist, his philosophical treatises formed the basis for Deism. Though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that deism and agnosticism were the ultimate logical conclusion of The Enlightenment and it's emphasis on reason and naturalism rather than it's presupposition.

This just will not do.

Which premises of Locke form the basis of Deism?

In what way do necessray enlightenment principles logically require deism and agnosticism?

[WinterStag]

This just will not do.

Which premises of Locke form the basis of Deism?

Well, you're asking a question here that entire books have been written about, but here a short summation:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=143
"Shortly after its invention by Lord Herbert, deism received indirect support from the physics of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and the philosophy of John Locke (1632-1704). The physical world, according to Newton, was explicable in terms of “insurmountable and uniform natural laws” that could be discovered by observation and formulated mathematically. By mastering these laws human reason could explain cosmic events that had previously been ascribed to divine intervention. The beauty and variety of the system, Newton believed, was irrefutable evidence that it had been designed and produced by an intelligent and powerful Creator. Close though he was to deism, Newton differed from the strict deists insofar as he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in stable orbits. He believed in biblical prophecies, but rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as irrational.

Newton’s close friend John Locke, though not a deist, supplied an epistemological grounding for deism more plausible than the innatism of Lord Herbert. Beginning with human experience of the external world, he accepted a version of the argument from causality that demonstrated, as he thought, the existence of God as the uncaused Necessary Being, eternal, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Locke also believed in Christian revelation on the ground of biblical prophecies and miracles. But he held that reason should be the ultimate judge of all truth and that the firmness of our assent to any proposition should not exceed the strength of the evidence that we could produce in its favor. It followed that revealed truths, which rested on indirect proofs from reports in Scripture and tradition, were less certain than things known directly by reason. He rejected certain Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, which in his judgment failed to meet the test of rational coherence. But, as I have said, he regarded himself as a Christian because he accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah foretold in biblical prophecy; he had no difficulty in admitting the miracles ascribed in the Bible to the prophets and to Jesus.

From Locke’s system it was but a small step to deism. In 1696 his disciple John Toland published the book Christianity not Mysterious, in which he attributed the mysteries of Christianity to pagan conceptions and the machinations of priestcraft. In 1730 another disciple, Matthew Tindal, published the book Christianity as Old as Creation, in which he sought to demonstrate that all rational creatures have access to “a law of nature or reason, absolutely perfect, eternal, and unchangeable; and that the design of the gospel was not to add to, or take from this law,” but only to rescue humankind from superstition. Tindal’s work, more radical than Toland’s, came be used as a kind of Bible of deism. Both Toland and Tindal were Christian deists; they accepted revelation but maintained that it was nothing more than a republication of the religion of pure reason. Reason alone, they believed, could establish the fundamental truths necessary for salvation. "

In what way do necessary enlightenment principles logically require deism and agnosticism?

Naturalism (or Empiricism to take the other branch of Enlightenment though) will ultimately lead to deism and then agnosticism/atheism. It didn't happen overnight, but once reason was elevated over revelation and human reason and/or experience became the ultimate test for what was "real" it became the inevitable conclusion, and so Western philosophy (with society only lagging slightly behind) move from orthodox Christianity to Unitarianism to Deism to Agnosticism/Atheism.

Now, none of this is to say that agnosticism/atheism is right or true (as I would hope you would surmise by own religious affiliation is far from my own conclusion), and in fact as modernity and "The Enlightenment Project" slowly fade away, we're already beginning to see the death of "hard atheism". As we move into the "post-modern" era I think we're quite likely a major resurgence of religious thought, but it will look a bit different than religion in the modern or pre-modern eras. (For a Christian perspective on this I would recommend "The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World" by Alister McGrath.)

[Glenn P]

Well, you're asking a question here that entire books have been written about, but here a short summation:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=143
"Shortly after its invention by Lord Herbert, deism received indirect support from the physics of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and the philosophy of John Locke (1632-1704). The physical world, according to Newton, was explicable in terms of “insurmountable and uniform natural laws” that could be discovered by observation and formulated mathematically. By mastering these laws human reason could explain cosmic events that had previously been ascribed to divine intervention. The beauty and variety of the system, Newton believed, was irrefutable evidence that it had been designed and produced by an intelligent and powerful Creator. Close though he was to deism, Newton differed from the strict deists insofar as he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in stable orbits. He believed in biblical prophecies, but rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as irrational.

None of this suggests that Locke's views formed the basis of Deism, but let's look at what comes next:

Newton’s close friend John Locke, though not a deist, supplied an epistemological grounding for deism more plausible than the innatism of Lord Herbert. Beginning with human experience of the external world, he accepted a version of the argument from causality that demonstrated, as he thought, the existence of God as the uncaused Necessary Being, eternal, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Locke also believed in Christian revelation on the ground of biblical prophecies and miracles. But he held that reason should be the ultimate judge of all truth and that the firmness of our assent to any proposition should not exceed the strength of the evidence that we could produce in its favor. It followed that revealed truths, which rested on indirect proofs from reports in Scripture and tradition, were less certain than things known directly by reason. He rejected certain Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, which in his judgment failed to meet the test of rational coherence. But, as I have said, he regarded himself as a Christian because he accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah foretold in biblical prophecy; he had no difficulty in admitting the miracles ascribed in the Bible to the prophets and to Jesus.

Notice the issue here - epistemology. Many Christians throughout history could affirmed the epistemology outlined here. That means that Locke no more provided the basis for Deism than for various forms of Christianity.

When it says above that "reason should be the judge" of truth, it just means that Locke held to a fairly strictly rationalist epistemology when it comes to assessing religious claims to mircal and the like. Many Christians, rightly or otherwise, affirm this. But the step from this to the metaphysical (not epistemological) claim that is deism is truly massive. Deism is a view that denies Locke's views on God's relation to the world, prophecy, mircalkes and such, and a deist would reject outright Locke's entire work, The Reasonableness of Christianity.

From Locke’s system it was but a small step to deism.

Good heavens no - it would be a herculean leap!

In 1696 his disciple John Toland published the book Christianity not Mysterious, in which he attributed the mysteries of Christianity to pagan conceptions and the machinations of priestcraft. In 1730 another disciple, Matthew Tindal, published the book Christianity as Old as Creation, in which he sought to demonstrate that all rational creatures have access to “a law of nature or reason, absolutely perfect, eternal, and unchangeable; and that the design of the gospel was not to add to, or take from this law,” but only to rescue humankind from superstition. Tindal’s work, more radical than Toland’s, came be used as a kind of Bible of deism. Both Toland and Tindal were Christian deists; they accepted revelation but maintained that it was nothing more than a republication of the religion of pure reason. Reason alone, they believed, could establish the fundamental truths necessary for salvation. "

Toland? Well, it's fair to say that Locke is not Tolland!

Naturalism (or Empiricism to take the other branch of Enlightenment though) will ultimately lead to deism and then agnosticism/atheism.

Since naturalism is the view that the physical universe is all that exists, then of course it rules out a Christian outlook. But the enlightenment was not a naturalist movement.

It didn't happen overnight, but once reason was elevated over revelation and human reason and/or experience became the ultimate test for what was "real" it became the inevitable conclusion, and so Western philosophy (with society only lagging slightly behind) move from orthodox Christianity to Unitarianism to Deism to Agnosticism/Atheism.

This is a new species of claim. Your previous claim was that deism/agnosticism is the logical conclusion of enlightement thought, such as that found in Locke. This claim is without support.

[WinterStag]

None of this suggests that Locke's views formed the basis of Deism, but let's look at what comes next:

Do you really not see how it progressed that once Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation became open to evaluation and rejection on a rationalist basis, that for the exact same reasons ever other doctrine related to the supernatural could be evaluated and rejected?

Notice the issue here - epistemology. Many Christians throughout history could affirmed the epistemology outlined here. That means that Locke no more provided the basis for Deism than for various forms of Christianity.

Except that once a rationalist epistemology is accepted, then a naturalist metaphysic will follow. Not necessarily immediately, but within a generation or so. Sure, there have been Christians who have followed a rationalist epistemology, but in a culture where it's widely acceptedly you'll see Christianity begin to decline rather rapidly thereafter. (Or any other religion really.)

When it says above that "reason should be the judge" of truth, it just means that Locke held to a fairly strictly rationalist epistemology when it comes to assessing religious claims to mircal and the like. Many Christians, rightly or otherwise, affirm this. But the step from this to the metaphysical (not epistemological) claim that is deism is truly massive. Deism is a view that denies Locke's views on God's relation to the world, prophecy, mircalkes and such, and a deist would reject outright Locke's entire work, The Reasonableness of Christianity.

Have you ever read The Reasonableness of Christianity? While it was in many senses an attempt to refute deistic thought, and for much of the work he attempts to. However, after constructing his case for the belief in Jesus as Messiah becoming a requirement for salvation, he becomes uncomfortable with the end result that this would damn anyone who had never heard of Jesus, and veers off into a defense of a salvific "natural religion" that would make any Deist proud:

"To this I answer that God will require of every man 'according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not.' ". . . . many to whom the promise of the messiah never came, and so were never of a capacity to believe or reject that revelation--yet God had, by the light of reason, revealed to all mankind who would make use of that light, that He was good and merciful."

"The same spark of the divine nature and knowledge in man, which making him a man, showed him the law he was under, as a man, showed him also the way of atoning the merciful, kind, compassionate Author and Father of him and his being, when he transgressed that law. He that made use of this candle of the Lord, so far as to find what was his duty, could not miss to find also the way to reconciliation and forgiveness, when he had failed of his duty, though if he used not his reason this way, if he put out or neglected this light, he might, perhaps, see neither."

"The law is the eternal, immutable standard of right. And a part of that law is that a man should forgive, not only his children, but his enemies, upon their repentance, asking pardon, and amendment. And therefore he could not doubt that the Author of this law, and God of patience and consolation, who is rich in mercy, would forgive his frail offspring, if they acknowledged their faults, disapproved the iniquity of their transgressions, begged his pardon, and resolved in earnest, for the future to conform their actions to this rule, which they owned to be right. This way of reconciliation, this hope of atonement, the light of nature revealed to them; and the revelation of the gospel, having said nothing to the contrary, leaves them to stand or fall to their own Father and Master, whose goodness and mercy is over all his works."

The deists simply took this way of thinking and became more consistent with it.

Since naturalism is the view that the physical universe is all that exists, then of course it rules out a Christian outlook. But the enlightenment was not a naturalist movement.

Not at first no, it was an rationalist and empiricist movement, but both of these ultimately produce naturalism.

This is a new species of claim. Your previous claim was that deism/agnosticism is the logical conclusion of enlightement thought, such as that found in Locke. This claim is without support.

Except that I have supported it, and frankly it should be rather obvious purely from looking at the actual progression of philosophy and religion from the time Enlightenment.