http://environment.about.com/b/2006/04/17/reduce-human-beings-by-90-percent-to-solve-environmental-woes-says-scientist.htm
“According to Professor Eric Pianka, a specialist in herpetology and evolutionary ecology who was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science, human beings have strained Earth’s natural resources to the breaking point, leaving the planet “parched.” Pianka believes the solution to this crisis is to eliminate the cause, by decreasing the number of human beings living on Earth from 6.5 billion to around 700 million—a 90 percent reduction. Pianka is convinced that Nature eventually will exterminate the majority of humans through widespread disease or other effects of global warming—and he seems delighted at the prospect.”
It’s people like Pianka who are hurting the environmental movement with these anti-humanist ideas. There’s no denying that humans have been a massive strain on the Earth’s natural resources. However, to suggest that the solution is to eliminate the majority of the human population is nothing less than a hatred for humanity. Though if Pianka is delighted at the prospect of a massive die off that will save the Earth, I’m sure he won’t object to suggestions to eliminate himself from this planet. If he cares for the Earth enough to be happy with the idea of a massive die-off, then I’m sure he’s willing to take part. The environment has become a religion, in which the Earth is the great god and the humans are the subjects at its mercy. The followers of this religion eagerly await the moment when their vengeful god will punish the people for the sins they have committed. Those of us who are free of the shackles of this blind faith however are willing to take a more reasonable and rational approach to the problem such as rethinking how we use our resources. Perhaps then we can continue to enjoy life on this wonderful planet.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Dr. Roy Spencer
“Climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer.” Who is he? Well Rush Limbaugh likes him for starters. Now, it would be wrong of me to immediately dismiss anybody who Rush claims to be a scientist, as not actually being a scientist so I decided to look into this Dr. Roy Spencer.
“Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
Ok, so far so good. A credible scientist with a background in temperature monitoring and an award to back it all up, maybe Rush is on to something here? Or, maybe not, “Spencer suggests that climate sensitivity is lower than is currently believed, and that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most global warming” (Global Warming: Natural or Manmade? by Roy Spencer). Alright, Dr. Spencer is a climate sceptic, though he doesn’t sound like an outright denialist, I’d still be willing to show some respect for him, unfortunately that was before I read that, “Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design, and rejects evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species” (Faith-Based Evolution, Roy Spencer, TCS Daily, 08 August 2005). I strongly encourage you to read that article if you want to be both enraged and amused. I won’t discuss it here to avoid being sidetracked any further other than to say that it really hurts Dr. Spencer’s credibility as a scientist whose opinion should be respected.
Real Climate, does a good job of addressing Dr. Spencer’s claims here.
It really is a shame that a scientist like Dr. Spencer, who has no doubt published credible papers in the past has bought into climate change scepticism.
“Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
Ok, so far so good. A credible scientist with a background in temperature monitoring and an award to back it all up, maybe Rush is on to something here? Or, maybe not, “Spencer suggests that climate sensitivity is lower than is currently believed, and that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most global warming” (Global Warming: Natural or Manmade? by Roy Spencer). Alright, Dr. Spencer is a climate sceptic, though he doesn’t sound like an outright denialist, I’d still be willing to show some respect for him, unfortunately that was before I read that, “Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design, and rejects evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species” (Faith-Based Evolution, Roy Spencer, TCS Daily, 08 August 2005). I strongly encourage you to read that article if you want to be both enraged and amused. I won’t discuss it here to avoid being sidetracked any further other than to say that it really hurts Dr. Spencer’s credibility as a scientist whose opinion should be respected.
Real Climate, does a good job of addressing Dr. Spencer’s claims here.
It really is a shame that a scientist like Dr. Spencer, who has no doubt published credible papers in the past has bought into climate change scepticism.
Rush Limbaugh is a Hoax
I have a new hobby! It’s called “Debunking Rush’s claims about climate change”. It’s likely that this hobby will either a) allow me to address climate myths being put out there or b) cause me to go insane from having to deal with an onslaught of self-inflicted exposure to stupidity. I’ve already addressed claims made by Rush in previous posts so here’s how this “hobby” is going to work. It’s rather simple, I’ll take a claim made by Rush and examine the falsehoods. I’ll only look at statements that can be argued against using reasonable evidence, i.e. statements that appear to have some scientific basis but are, since they are coming from Rush, likely to be incorrect. I won’t be bothered to deal with claims such as “climate change is a hoax made by the liberals!” There’s no arguing against that, as in the argument is so wrong as to not even be worth disproving.
Claim: “More people are starting to consider the notion that we actually may be in a cooling phase, 'cause there hasn't been any significant warming in years.” http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032709/content/01125111.guest.html
Now before I even begin to examine this claim let’s give Rush the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say we are in a phase of global cooling, it wouldn’t be any better than warming. Significant temperature changes in either direction would be disruptive to the Earth’s climate. Ice Age?
What is global cooling you ask?
“Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s” ("Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007-02-05. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. Retrieved 2007-02-02. ).
Poor reporting led to popularity of the global cooling idea. Unfortunately, some have latched onto this as proof that scientists are wrong when it comes to the idea that the planet is warming. It should be acknowledged that there was a trend of cooling from the 40s to the 70s (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/), though this doesn’t undermine the fact that the overall trend has been a rise in global temperatures.
As I read through that Real Climate article I couldn’t help but feel an overwhelming sense of irony. The belief in global cooling seems to have grown out of data of which not enough was known to make predictions. In other words: exactly what deniers say about today’s climate data.
Here is more information (from the same article) to help debunk the global cooling myth.
“Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of today’s science, and with extra data available:
The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpretation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature increases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.”
It should be apparent by now that the data from the 70s wasn’t accurate, it was a poor judgment on the part of some promote the idea that the information they had found pointed to global cooling.
Claim: “More people are starting to consider the notion that we actually may be in a cooling phase, 'cause there hasn't been any significant warming in years.” http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032709/content/01125111.guest.html
Now before I even begin to examine this claim let’s give Rush the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say we are in a phase of global cooling, it wouldn’t be any better than warming. Significant temperature changes in either direction would be disruptive to the Earth’s climate. Ice Age?
What is global cooling you ask?
“Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s” ("Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007-02-05. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. Retrieved 2007-02-02. ).
Poor reporting led to popularity of the global cooling idea. Unfortunately, some have latched onto this as proof that scientists are wrong when it comes to the idea that the planet is warming. It should be acknowledged that there was a trend of cooling from the 40s to the 70s (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/), though this doesn’t undermine the fact that the overall trend has been a rise in global temperatures.
As I read through that Real Climate article I couldn’t help but feel an overwhelming sense of irony. The belief in global cooling seems to have grown out of data of which not enough was known to make predictions. In other words: exactly what deniers say about today’s climate data.
Here is more information (from the same article) to help debunk the global cooling myth.
“Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of today’s science, and with extra data available:
The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpretation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature increases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.”
It should be apparent by now that the data from the 70s wasn’t accurate, it was a poor judgment on the part of some promote the idea that the information they had found pointed to global cooling.
No Consensus?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120909/content/01125107.guest.html
Claim: A sheer number of scientists are rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide.
False: “According to the results of a one-time questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change” (Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". University of Illinois at Chicago. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-21. ).
Rush says that, “There are about 450 academic peer reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming.” I will take Rush’s word on this one. However, it still stands that the vast majority are in consensus, man-made global warming is real and it is a concern.
Claim: A sheer number of scientists are rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide.
False: “According to the results of a one-time questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change” (Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". University of Illinois at Chicago. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-21. ).
Rush says that, “There are about 450 academic peer reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming.” I will take Rush’s word on this one. However, it still stands that the vast majority are in consensus, man-made global warming is real and it is a concern.
Won't Someone Think of the Polar Bears?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html
Claim: Climate change leading polar bears to cannibalism is a myth.
True: I will agree that given the chance the males will eat the young. It seems this is a case of sensationalism linking a horrifying image to that of climate change, as reported by the CBC,
“However, an Inuit leader in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut said the incidents are non-events and that it's wrong to connect the bear's behaviour with starvation.
"It makes the south — southern people — look so ignorant," said Kivalliq Inuit Association president Jose Kusugak.
"A male polar bear eating a cub becomes a big story and they try to marry it with climate change and so on, it becomes absurd when it's a normal normal occurrence," Kusugak said”
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/12/03/mb-polar-bear-cannibalism-churchill-manitoba.html#ixzz0fLzroyUa”
The reason that environmentalists will latch on to this story as being a cause of concern for the environment is that the thought of a cute little polar bear cub being eaten by its own kind is indeed horrifying. Those in the environmental community need to be careful when making such claims, when they are proved to be false; it only adds fuel to the fire of scepticism.
Claim: Climate change leading polar bears to cannibalism is a myth.
True: I will agree that given the chance the males will eat the young. It seems this is a case of sensationalism linking a horrifying image to that of climate change, as reported by the CBC,
“However, an Inuit leader in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut said the incidents are non-events and that it's wrong to connect the bear's behaviour with starvation.
"It makes the south — southern people — look so ignorant," said Kivalliq Inuit Association president Jose Kusugak.
"A male polar bear eating a cub becomes a big story and they try to marry it with climate change and so on, it becomes absurd when it's a normal normal occurrence," Kusugak said”
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/12/03/mb-polar-bear-cannibalism-churchill-manitoba.html#ixzz0fLzroyUa”
The reason that environmentalists will latch on to this story as being a cause of concern for the environment is that the thought of a cute little polar bear cub being eaten by its own kind is indeed horrifying. Those in the environmental community need to be careful when making such claims, when they are proved to be false; it only adds fuel to the fire of scepticism.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Faith of Our Fathers
The debate over whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation has been a dividing issue for a long time. The Christian fundamentalists insist that the founding fathers were devout Christians who created America as a Christian nation. They believe that America has moved away from its roots and must return to the ways of the past. Secularists counter that the founding fathers often spoke out against religion and that any efforts to bring America closer to being a Christian nation would go against what the founding fathers intended. I decided to look into this issue. What I found is that the answer is more complex than what either side will acknowledge.
First things first, I am an atheist. I am on the side that America was not founded as a Christian nation, but one that gives rights and freedoms to all, regardless of their beliefs. I disagree with the idea that rights can be God given. The fact that many people around the world do not enjoy the same freedoms that Americans do is an indication that either a) there is no all powerful being who has created rights for its people or b) it speaks to the American ego that they would believe that they have been chosen by God to have these rights. My biases notwithstanding, I will try to paint a balanced picture of the views of the founding fathers. My goal here is not to show what the founding fathers said and then choose a side in this debate based on that information. (Remember this article is about what the founding fathers believed, not my own personal view).
The founding fathers consisted of a large group of people. For the purposes of this article the fathers I will be examining are: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. You will see that there was a wide range of views among these founders. I will attempt to portray the founders using their own words.
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin “expressed opposition to authoritarianism both political and religious.” That being said, he was still a believer.
“Franklin was a non-dogmatic believer, who felt that organized religion was necessary to keep men good to their fellow men, but rarely attended church himself. His faith in God was an important factor in his support for the American Revolution. When Ben Franklin met Voltaire in Paris and asked this great apostle of the Enlightenment to bless his grandson, Voltaire said in English, “God and Liberty,” and added, “this is the only appropriate benediction for the grandson of Monsieur Franklin.”
Franklin’s views appear to conflict with fundamentalists Christian who would surely disagree with his lack of church attendance. Secularists and non-believers would scoff at the idea that organized religion is necessary to keep men good. His character almost seems like a paradox. He doubted the divinity of Jesus and yet the same time invoked God as being in support of the Revolution. Here we have a man who would invoke the rage of fundamentalists for questioning Jesus and the disgust of the secularists for implying the idea of a holy war.
“Franklin’s Puritan upbringing was a central factor throughout his life, as a philanthropist, civic leader and activist in the Revolutionary War. Franklin rejected much of his Puritan upbringing: belief in salvation, hell, Jesus Christ’s divinity, and indeed most religious dogma. He retained a strong faith in God as the wellspring of morality and goodness in man, and as a Providential actor in history responsible for American independence. He often invoked God as being in support of the American Revolution, as did most of the founding generation. Franklin wrote, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”
While Franklin certainly was a believer in some form of Christianity, his belief that America should be a Christian nation is another matter.
“One of Franklin's famous characteristics was his respect, tolerance and promotion of all churches. Referring to his experience in Philadelphia, he wrote in his autobiography, "new Places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary Contribution, my Mite for such purpose, whatever might be the Sect, was never refused." “He helped create a new type of nation that would draw strength from its religious pluralism.”
Franklin would be in disagreement in with those who maintain that America must be a Christian nation. Such an idea fails to acknowledge the faiths of other Americans. Something Franklin appeared to understand. Of course, secularists can’t deny the influence that faith had on Franklin’s actions and ideas. We can see that if one is to examine Franklin through the lens of their own worldview, that he becomes a man who supports that person’s ideas. It seems everyone wanted to claim Franklin for themselves.
“According to David Morgan, Franklin was a proponent of religion in general. He prayed to "Powerful Goodness" and referred to God as "the infinite". John Adams noted that Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: "The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker." Whatever else Franklin was, concludes Morgan, "he was a true champion of generic religion." In a letter to Richard Price, Franklin stated that he believed that religion should support itself without help from the government, claiming; "When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
In our times it’s likely that Franklin would be a moderate in regards to religion. Here we have a man who was certainly devout towards his own views. He had no doubts that religion plays in important role in shaping men and country. At the same time he believes all should be free to worship as they please.
George Washington
Washington, like Franklin, believed in a God and felt that everyone had the right to worship as they pleased.
“I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience”
Religious freedom was important to Washington, he felt that all should be protected and be allowed to worship. Like Franklin, he suggested that America’s efforts were being guided by the hands of God.
“Our own Country's Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions — The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny mediated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth”
Even though we have only examined two of the founding fathers, we already see a pattern beginning to emerge. These men were believers in a God who interfered in the works of his creation. Yet, they also believed in the freedom to worship as one saw fit.
“The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government. As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice. However both statesmen would have discouraged such a measure at the national level because of its divisiveness. They confined themselves to promoting religion rhetorically, offering frequent testimonials to its importance in building the moral character of American citizens that, they believed, undergirded public order and successful popular government.”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
To this day there remains uncertainty in regards to Washington’s faith. Yes, he was a believer, but what belief system did he follow?
“Historians and biographers continue to debate the degree to which he can be counted as a Christian, and the degree to which he was a deist. He was an early supporter of religious toleration and freedom of religion. In 1775, he ordered that his troops not show anti-Catholic sentiments by burning the Pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night. When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists. (emphasis mine)”
It is possible to be both a believer and a secularist. Someone who may be guided by faith but does not impose the doctrines of their faith upon others. Surely a dogmatic fundamentalist would not acknowledge that those of other faiths could be capable of good work. I will allow the writings of Thomas Jefferson to close out our examination of George Washington.
"Feb. 1. Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article in their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory address to the governors of the States when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion. "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in the system (Christianity) than he did." (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, p. 284.)”
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1
John Adams
Adams believed in the idea of God given rights.
“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”
His belief in the right of freedom was directly influenced by the belief in God. Supporters of a Christian nation would certainly argue that without the belief in God given rights America would not have the freedom it does today. I would be in disagreement with that view, but it is a view that Adams appears to support. Again, this is about the views of the founding fathers, not my own disagreements. Adams supported freedom to worship provided you did not interfere with the rights of others in their worship.
“It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.”
According to Adams, the people had a duty to worship the Supreme Being. The fundamentalists would cite this as supporting their cause. Secularists would be horrified at the idea that Americans have a duty to worship that, is hardly the idea of freedom. However, fundamentalists of today should take note that Adams says that the public peace should not be disturbed. Westboro Baptists take note.
“Adams was educated at Harvard when the influence of deism was growing there, and used deistic terms in his speeches and writing. He believed in the essential goodness of the creation, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ or that God intervened in the affairs of individuals. He also believed that regular church service was beneficial to man's moral sense. Everett (1966) concludes that "Adams strove for a religion based on a common sense sort of reasonableness" and maintained that religion must change and evolve toward perfection.”
Robert B. Everett, "The Mature Religious Thought of John Adams," Proceedings of the South Carolina Historical Association (1966), p 49–57; [ISSN 0361-6207].
This view holds in line with that of a liberal theology that suggests that religion must change to be in lines with the times, less it risk becoming irrelevant and outdated. Those in America today who support an old style of Christianity reflective of its dogmatic beliefs, would be at odds with Adams assertion that religion must evolve towards perfection. In the eyes of a fundamentalist suggesting that their religion is not already perfect would be blasphemous. Given the nature of the fundamentalists today the following quote would have some today calling for Adams to be burned in Hell if it weren’t for his status as a founding father.
“Fielding (1940) shows Adams synthesized his beliefs as a Puritan, a Deist, and a Humanist. Adams thought Christianity had once been a fresh revelation, but had now become an instrument of superstition, fraud, and the quest for power by the unscrupulous.”
Howard Ioan Fielding, "John Adams: Puritan, Deist, Humanist," Journal of Religion, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 33-46 in JSTOR
Secularists would point to this as showing Adams saw the problems with the idea of a Christian nation. Superstition, fraud, and the quest for power by the unscrupulous is a rather accurate summary of the fundamentalists that exist in America today. Though we should remind ourselves that he still believed in God given rights. Even more conflicting to the previous quotation is this one from a book published a few decades after the work of Fielding.
“In 1796, Adams denounced political opponent Thomas Paine's criticisms of Christianity, saying, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.”
The Works of John Adams (1854), vol III, p 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796
The first quote doesn’t indicate when Adams had his thoughts regarding the downsides of Christianity. Here I can only speculate that either his opinions changed at some point or that while he did believe Christianity had its faults, it was still the best faith that existed. Correspondence between Adams and Jefferson may shed more light on the issue.
“Adams told Jefferson, "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion." In another letter, Adams reveals his sincere devotion to God, “My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exaltation in my own existence, tho' but an Atom, a molecule Organique, in the Universe, are my religion.” He continues by revealing his Universalist sympathies, rejection of orthodox Christian dogma, and his personal belief that he was a true Christian for not accepting such dogma, “Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is balanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word." The Society also demonstrates that Adams rejected orthodox Christian doctrines of the trinity, predestination, yet equated human understanding and the human conscience to “celestial communication” or personal revelation from God. It is also shown that Adams held a strong conviction in life after death or otherwise, as he explained, “You might be ashamed of your Maker”
1. ^ a b "Unitarian Universalist Historical Society Biography". http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnadams.html. Retrieved 2007-12-11.
Adams was a Christian who rejected orthodox Christian dogma as not being true Christianity. In modern terms, “that’s a rather un-Christian thing to do.” Such a view describes how more moderate Christians react to the words and actions of their fundamentalist peers.
Thomas Jefferson
If we are going to discuss the issue of America being a Christian nation we cannot ignore the words of Thomas Jefferson, he was the one who invoked the idea of separation of Church and State.
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State”
We should also note that separation of Church and State along, with suggesting that religion need not interfere with the workings of government, also means that government must not interfere with religion. Therefore, no laws can be passed that would force a religious institution to act against its will. A brief aside, when a State government considers the issue of same-sex marriage there are some points they must keep in mind. The influence of religious scripture and institutions should not play a factor in determining whether or not to allow same-sex marriage into law. However, if a law is passed, any religious institution that refuses to perform such marriages cannot be forced into doing so. Only then can the wall between Church and State be maintained, but I digress, back to the topic at hand. We will see shortly how Jefferson might have met something else by the issue of separation of Church and State.
Jefferson also wrote of tolerance to all faiths, not just Christianity. An idea that would not exist in a Christian nation.
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Fundamentalists should pay attention to this and stop making a fuss over what their fellow American’s believe. Of course, this could also be shown to some Secularists who express concern with the faith of other Americans. Jefferson is simply telling everyone that when it comes to faith, mind your own business.
It also important to look at the paradox that existed between Jefferson’s actions when it came to worship and the idea of a national religion. He was a devout worshipper, turning the state into a church. However, he was opposed to creating a national religion.
“It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
Fundamentalists will certainly jump on that last paragraph as going against my own interpretation of separation of Church and State. It could be claimed that Jefferson did indeed intend for it to only say that there should be no national religion. (So we can rule out support for a Christian nation). That’s not to say however that he would be opposed to religion’s influence on the State. Here we end up with a picture of man who was in between the fundamentalists and the secularists.
John Jay
Information on Jay’s religious views was scarce. Here’s what I managed to find.
“In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
So here we finally have explicit mention of America being a Christian nation. Now don’t get too excited, this is the writing of one of many founding fathers, all who held differing views towards how religion should be treated in America. It is becoming more apparent that the debate over whether or not America is a Christian nation has been going on since the days of its founding.
James Madison
Madison believed that the hand of God was at work in the founding of America.
“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”
Yet, Madison also believed that religion should not interfere with the civil rights of others.
“The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”
Alexander Hamilton
I will let the following paragraph summarize Hamilton’s religious views.
“In his early life, he was an orthodox and conventional, though not deeply pious, Presbyterian. From 1777 to 1792, Hamilton appears to have been completely indifferent, and made jokes about God at the Constitutional Convention. During the French Revolution, he had an "opportunistic religiosity", using Christianity for political ends and insisting that Christianity and Jefferson's democracy were incompatible. After his misfortunes of 1801, he asserted the truth of the Christian revelation. He proposed a Christian Constitutional Society in 1802, to take hold of "some strong feeling of the mind" to elect "fit men" to office; but Hamilton wrote also of "Christian welfare societies" for the poor. He was not a member of any denomination, but led his family in the Episcopal service the Sunday before the duel. After he was shot, Hamilton requested communion first from Benjamin Moore, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, who initially declined to administer the Sacrament chiefly because he did not wish to sanction the practice of dueling. Hamilton then requested communion from Presbyterian pastor John Mason, who declined on the grounds that Presbyterians did not reserve the Sacrament. After Hamilton spoke of his belief in God's mercy, and of his desire to renounce dueling, Bishop Moore reversed his decision, and administered communion to Hamilton.”
Conclusion
The debate over whether or not America is a Christian nation is a polarizing one. An issue which I believe is more complex than a simple yes or no answer. Both sides of the debate can quote mine the statements made by the founding fathers to reinforce their views. Those hoping for an answer to the question of America’s religious influences will be disappointed. As I stated my purpose here is for the reader to understand the views of the fathers and make their own conclusions. It would be my hope however, that if you have in the past that you no longer view this as a black and white issue.
The quotations I have provided in this article are only a fraction of what I came across, though to post them all would be redundant as they reinforce the same points. If you are interested in reading what I have found please follow the link below.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfsk755t_15cvj7bdf4
First things first, I am an atheist. I am on the side that America was not founded as a Christian nation, but one that gives rights and freedoms to all, regardless of their beliefs. I disagree with the idea that rights can be God given. The fact that many people around the world do not enjoy the same freedoms that Americans do is an indication that either a) there is no all powerful being who has created rights for its people or b) it speaks to the American ego that they would believe that they have been chosen by God to have these rights. My biases notwithstanding, I will try to paint a balanced picture of the views of the founding fathers. My goal here is not to show what the founding fathers said and then choose a side in this debate based on that information. (Remember this article is about what the founding fathers believed, not my own personal view).
The founding fathers consisted of a large group of people. For the purposes of this article the fathers I will be examining are: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. You will see that there was a wide range of views among these founders. I will attempt to portray the founders using their own words.
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin “expressed opposition to authoritarianism both political and religious.” That being said, he was still a believer.
“Franklin was a non-dogmatic believer, who felt that organized religion was necessary to keep men good to their fellow men, but rarely attended church himself. His faith in God was an important factor in his support for the American Revolution. When Ben Franklin met Voltaire in Paris and asked this great apostle of the Enlightenment to bless his grandson, Voltaire said in English, “God and Liberty,” and added, “this is the only appropriate benediction for the grandson of Monsieur Franklin.”
Franklin’s views appear to conflict with fundamentalists Christian who would surely disagree with his lack of church attendance. Secularists and non-believers would scoff at the idea that organized religion is necessary to keep men good. His character almost seems like a paradox. He doubted the divinity of Jesus and yet the same time invoked God as being in support of the Revolution. Here we have a man who would invoke the rage of fundamentalists for questioning Jesus and the disgust of the secularists for implying the idea of a holy war.
“Franklin’s Puritan upbringing was a central factor throughout his life, as a philanthropist, civic leader and activist in the Revolutionary War. Franklin rejected much of his Puritan upbringing: belief in salvation, hell, Jesus Christ’s divinity, and indeed most religious dogma. He retained a strong faith in God as the wellspring of morality and goodness in man, and as a Providential actor in history responsible for American independence. He often invoked God as being in support of the American Revolution, as did most of the founding generation. Franklin wrote, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”
While Franklin certainly was a believer in some form of Christianity, his belief that America should be a Christian nation is another matter.
“One of Franklin's famous characteristics was his respect, tolerance and promotion of all churches. Referring to his experience in Philadelphia, he wrote in his autobiography, "new Places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary Contribution, my Mite for such purpose, whatever might be the Sect, was never refused." “He helped create a new type of nation that would draw strength from its religious pluralism.”
Franklin would be in disagreement in with those who maintain that America must be a Christian nation. Such an idea fails to acknowledge the faiths of other Americans. Something Franklin appeared to understand. Of course, secularists can’t deny the influence that faith had on Franklin’s actions and ideas. We can see that if one is to examine Franklin through the lens of their own worldview, that he becomes a man who supports that person’s ideas. It seems everyone wanted to claim Franklin for themselves.
“According to David Morgan, Franklin was a proponent of religion in general. He prayed to "Powerful Goodness" and referred to God as "the infinite". John Adams noted that Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: "The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker." Whatever else Franklin was, concludes Morgan, "he was a true champion of generic religion." In a letter to Richard Price, Franklin stated that he believed that religion should support itself without help from the government, claiming; "When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
In our times it’s likely that Franklin would be a moderate in regards to religion. Here we have a man who was certainly devout towards his own views. He had no doubts that religion plays in important role in shaping men and country. At the same time he believes all should be free to worship as they please.
George Washington
Washington, like Franklin, believed in a God and felt that everyone had the right to worship as they pleased.
“I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience”
Religious freedom was important to Washington, he felt that all should be protected and be allowed to worship. Like Franklin, he suggested that America’s efforts were being guided by the hands of God.
“Our own Country's Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions — The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny mediated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth”
Even though we have only examined two of the founding fathers, we already see a pattern beginning to emerge. These men were believers in a God who interfered in the works of his creation. Yet, they also believed in the freedom to worship as one saw fit.
“The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government. As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice. However both statesmen would have discouraged such a measure at the national level because of its divisiveness. They confined themselves to promoting religion rhetorically, offering frequent testimonials to its importance in building the moral character of American citizens that, they believed, undergirded public order and successful popular government.”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
To this day there remains uncertainty in regards to Washington’s faith. Yes, he was a believer, but what belief system did he follow?
“Historians and biographers continue to debate the degree to which he can be counted as a Christian, and the degree to which he was a deist. He was an early supporter of religious toleration and freedom of religion. In 1775, he ordered that his troops not show anti-Catholic sentiments by burning the Pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night. When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists. (emphasis mine)”
It is possible to be both a believer and a secularist. Someone who may be guided by faith but does not impose the doctrines of their faith upon others. Surely a dogmatic fundamentalist would not acknowledge that those of other faiths could be capable of good work. I will allow the writings of Thomas Jefferson to close out our examination of George Washington.
"Feb. 1. Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article in their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory address to the governors of the States when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion. "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in the system (Christianity) than he did." (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, p. 284.)”
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1
John Adams
Adams believed in the idea of God given rights.
“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”
His belief in the right of freedom was directly influenced by the belief in God. Supporters of a Christian nation would certainly argue that without the belief in God given rights America would not have the freedom it does today. I would be in disagreement with that view, but it is a view that Adams appears to support. Again, this is about the views of the founding fathers, not my own disagreements. Adams supported freedom to worship provided you did not interfere with the rights of others in their worship.
“It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.”
According to Adams, the people had a duty to worship the Supreme Being. The fundamentalists would cite this as supporting their cause. Secularists would be horrified at the idea that Americans have a duty to worship that, is hardly the idea of freedom. However, fundamentalists of today should take note that Adams says that the public peace should not be disturbed. Westboro Baptists take note.
“Adams was educated at Harvard when the influence of deism was growing there, and used deistic terms in his speeches and writing. He believed in the essential goodness of the creation, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ or that God intervened in the affairs of individuals. He also believed that regular church service was beneficial to man's moral sense. Everett (1966) concludes that "Adams strove for a religion based on a common sense sort of reasonableness" and maintained that religion must change and evolve toward perfection.”
Robert B. Everett, "The Mature Religious Thought of John Adams," Proceedings of the South Carolina Historical Association (1966), p 49–57; [ISSN 0361-6207].
This view holds in line with that of a liberal theology that suggests that religion must change to be in lines with the times, less it risk becoming irrelevant and outdated. Those in America today who support an old style of Christianity reflective of its dogmatic beliefs, would be at odds with Adams assertion that religion must evolve towards perfection. In the eyes of a fundamentalist suggesting that their religion is not already perfect would be blasphemous. Given the nature of the fundamentalists today the following quote would have some today calling for Adams to be burned in Hell if it weren’t for his status as a founding father.
“Fielding (1940) shows Adams synthesized his beliefs as a Puritan, a Deist, and a Humanist. Adams thought Christianity had once been a fresh revelation, but had now become an instrument of superstition, fraud, and the quest for power by the unscrupulous.”
Howard Ioan Fielding, "John Adams: Puritan, Deist, Humanist," Journal of Religion, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 33-46 in JSTOR
Secularists would point to this as showing Adams saw the problems with the idea of a Christian nation. Superstition, fraud, and the quest for power by the unscrupulous is a rather accurate summary of the fundamentalists that exist in America today. Though we should remind ourselves that he still believed in God given rights. Even more conflicting to the previous quotation is this one from a book published a few decades after the work of Fielding.
“In 1796, Adams denounced political opponent Thomas Paine's criticisms of Christianity, saying, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.”
The Works of John Adams (1854), vol III, p 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796
The first quote doesn’t indicate when Adams had his thoughts regarding the downsides of Christianity. Here I can only speculate that either his opinions changed at some point or that while he did believe Christianity had its faults, it was still the best faith that existed. Correspondence between Adams and Jefferson may shed more light on the issue.
“Adams told Jefferson, "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion." In another letter, Adams reveals his sincere devotion to God, “My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exaltation in my own existence, tho' but an Atom, a molecule Organique, in the Universe, are my religion.” He continues by revealing his Universalist sympathies, rejection of orthodox Christian dogma, and his personal belief that he was a true Christian for not accepting such dogma, “Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is balanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word." The Society also demonstrates that Adams rejected orthodox Christian doctrines of the trinity, predestination, yet equated human understanding and the human conscience to “celestial communication” or personal revelation from God. It is also shown that Adams held a strong conviction in life after death or otherwise, as he explained, “You might be ashamed of your Maker”
1. ^ a b "Unitarian Universalist Historical Society Biography". http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnadams.html. Retrieved 2007-12-11.
Adams was a Christian who rejected orthodox Christian dogma as not being true Christianity. In modern terms, “that’s a rather un-Christian thing to do.” Such a view describes how more moderate Christians react to the words and actions of their fundamentalist peers.
Thomas Jefferson
If we are going to discuss the issue of America being a Christian nation we cannot ignore the words of Thomas Jefferson, he was the one who invoked the idea of separation of Church and State.
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State”
We should also note that separation of Church and State along, with suggesting that religion need not interfere with the workings of government, also means that government must not interfere with religion. Therefore, no laws can be passed that would force a religious institution to act against its will. A brief aside, when a State government considers the issue of same-sex marriage there are some points they must keep in mind. The influence of religious scripture and institutions should not play a factor in determining whether or not to allow same-sex marriage into law. However, if a law is passed, any religious institution that refuses to perform such marriages cannot be forced into doing so. Only then can the wall between Church and State be maintained, but I digress, back to the topic at hand. We will see shortly how Jefferson might have met something else by the issue of separation of Church and State.
Jefferson also wrote of tolerance to all faiths, not just Christianity. An idea that would not exist in a Christian nation.
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Fundamentalists should pay attention to this and stop making a fuss over what their fellow American’s believe. Of course, this could also be shown to some Secularists who express concern with the faith of other Americans. Jefferson is simply telling everyone that when it comes to faith, mind your own business.
It also important to look at the paradox that existed between Jefferson’s actions when it came to worship and the idea of a national religion. He was a devout worshipper, turning the state into a church. However, he was opposed to creating a national religion.
“It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
Fundamentalists will certainly jump on that last paragraph as going against my own interpretation of separation of Church and State. It could be claimed that Jefferson did indeed intend for it to only say that there should be no national religion. (So we can rule out support for a Christian nation). That’s not to say however that he would be opposed to religion’s influence on the State. Here we end up with a picture of man who was in between the fundamentalists and the secularists.
John Jay
Information on Jay’s religious views was scarce. Here’s what I managed to find.
“In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
So here we finally have explicit mention of America being a Christian nation. Now don’t get too excited, this is the writing of one of many founding fathers, all who held differing views towards how religion should be treated in America. It is becoming more apparent that the debate over whether or not America is a Christian nation has been going on since the days of its founding.
James Madison
Madison believed that the hand of God was at work in the founding of America.
“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”
Yet, Madison also believed that religion should not interfere with the civil rights of others.
“The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”
Alexander Hamilton
I will let the following paragraph summarize Hamilton’s religious views.
“In his early life, he was an orthodox and conventional, though not deeply pious, Presbyterian. From 1777 to 1792, Hamilton appears to have been completely indifferent, and made jokes about God at the Constitutional Convention. During the French Revolution, he had an "opportunistic religiosity", using Christianity for political ends and insisting that Christianity and Jefferson's democracy were incompatible. After his misfortunes of 1801, he asserted the truth of the Christian revelation. He proposed a Christian Constitutional Society in 1802, to take hold of "some strong feeling of the mind" to elect "fit men" to office; but Hamilton wrote also of "Christian welfare societies" for the poor. He was not a member of any denomination, but led his family in the Episcopal service the Sunday before the duel. After he was shot, Hamilton requested communion first from Benjamin Moore, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, who initially declined to administer the Sacrament chiefly because he did not wish to sanction the practice of dueling. Hamilton then requested communion from Presbyterian pastor John Mason, who declined on the grounds that Presbyterians did not reserve the Sacrament. After Hamilton spoke of his belief in God's mercy, and of his desire to renounce dueling, Bishop Moore reversed his decision, and administered communion to Hamilton.”
Conclusion
The debate over whether or not America is a Christian nation is a polarizing one. An issue which I believe is more complex than a simple yes or no answer. Both sides of the debate can quote mine the statements made by the founding fathers to reinforce their views. Those hoping for an answer to the question of America’s religious influences will be disappointed. As I stated my purpose here is for the reader to understand the views of the fathers and make their own conclusions. It would be my hope however, that if you have in the past that you no longer view this as a black and white issue.
The quotations I have provided in this article are only a fraction of what I came across, though to post them all would be redundant as they reinforce the same points. If you are interested in reading what I have found please follow the link below.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfsk755t_15cvj7bdf4
Limbaugh Gate
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021010/content/01125106.guest.html
The “climate scientist” Rush Limbaugh has claimed that the recent snow storms hitting the U.S are proof that decades of research by real climate scientists is wrong. This would be something to laugh at if it wasn’t for the fact that people by into such misinformation.
“There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0fFl5DaWx
Denialists like Rush seem to get confused when they hear “global warming”. Climate change is the more accurate description. Changes in the climate system could lead to more freak snow storms. Sure snow storms are expected in the winter but, considering the fact that the recent snow fall appears to have crippled the Eastern U.S, would you want that to become the norm? The Time article goes on to say:
“But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0fFlnkZp2
In other words, heavy snowfall and colder weather don’t go hand in hand. A couple of weeks ago a strong wind and heavy snow fall hit my home region. It was about -6, if I recall, yet the heavy wind and snow made it feel much worse. The next day it was around -15, though it did not feel as cold. The heavy snow and wind can create the illusion of colder temperatures. Maybe Rush doesn’t know about wind chill. The last point from the Time article deals with the issue of those, on both sides of the debate, who confuse weather with climate.
“Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0fFmuz7dB
If this is how Rush behaves when it snows in the winter. I’d hate to see what he does if it snows in the summer.
The “climate scientist” Rush Limbaugh has claimed that the recent snow storms hitting the U.S are proof that decades of research by real climate scientists is wrong. This would be something to laugh at if it wasn’t for the fact that people by into such misinformation.
“There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0fFl5DaWx
Denialists like Rush seem to get confused when they hear “global warming”. Climate change is the more accurate description. Changes in the climate system could lead to more freak snow storms. Sure snow storms are expected in the winter but, considering the fact that the recent snow fall appears to have crippled the Eastern U.S, would you want that to become the norm? The Time article goes on to say:
“But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0fFlnkZp2
In other words, heavy snowfall and colder weather don’t go hand in hand. A couple of weeks ago a strong wind and heavy snow fall hit my home region. It was about -6, if I recall, yet the heavy wind and snow made it feel much worse. The next day it was around -15, though it did not feel as cold. The heavy snow and wind can create the illusion of colder temperatures. Maybe Rush doesn’t know about wind chill. The last point from the Time article deals with the issue of those, on both sides of the debate, who confuse weather with climate.
“Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0fFmuz7dB
If this is how Rush behaves when it snows in the winter. I’d hate to see what he does if it snows in the summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)