TruthBook Religious News Blog

How religion got deep into politics

By John Shulson | The Virginia Gazette
October 1, 2008

WILLIAMSBURG -- Bruton Parish Episcopal Church recently launched its fall series, “The Influence of Religion on Presidential Politics,” with an overflow crowd in Lewis Hall to hear Dan Roberts speak on “America’s Vacant Public Square.”

Roberts, a true Renaissance man, is a professor of history at the University of Richmond. He’s also a Presbyterian minister, a Bronze Star Medal recipient and a jazz pianist. Roberts created the syndicated Public Radio series, “A Moment in Time,” which plays to 2 million listeners eager to resist “this growing epidemic of ignorance about the [historical] past.”

The radio program was inspired by a survey in which 78% of college seniors from 55 top universities could identify Bevis and Butthead, while only 33% could connect the dots between George Washington and Yorktown. Roberts set about to make history relevant in short radio bursts.

His thoughts concerning religion and politics date back to the founding days of our country and its disenchantment with the Church of England.

Assuredly, “Church and state were tightly locked,” he told his Bruton Parish audience, “but distrust also existed.” He recalled that the Founding Fathers rejected sectarian religion in government. “The state would not be the people’s moral salvation, and it wouldn’t seek to manage people’s lives.”

Instead, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution addressed religion in non-specific terms. “We could have created a Christian republic, but we looked west toward something new,” he said.

However, the seeds of a growing religious movement within the state were sown when the Constitution was ratified. “Evangelicals said they wanted a Bill of Rights and freedom of religion and bartered with James Madison to achieve this.”

As America began to grow into a diverse republic, the Great Awakening saw a growth in evangelical churches. Later, the immigration of many Catholics and Jews tended to undermine Protestant dominations, he said.

Roberts said presidential candidates realize “it’s dangerous to play the religious card. Candidates try to avoid making it an issue... in order not to offendcategories of people.”

Since candidates need to be careful not to make overt appeals, Roberts said, politicians resort to code language such as “family values.” He explained that “family values” can mean one thing to a couple with a child in Virginia and quite another to two men who adopt a child in Chicago.

Of the need to tread lightly in the use of religion, Roberts illustrated three candidates who traversed political minefields: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon.

Even though Jefferson was accused of being a deist and the father of a child born to a slave, he refused to respond to allegations and chose to ignore the subject of religion. He decided instead to hit hard on John Adams’ position on war.

Lincoln didn’t conform to orthodox religious folks. He reacted against sectarian rivalry and even used reason and ridicule to counter aspects of the Bible. However, Lincoln eventually grew into a form of Unitarian religion, using it not in debates but in other ways. He used biblical language in fighting slavery. He could speak the religious language of the voters he needed. The result was that his humor and his personal demeanor propelled him to office even though the people didn’t share his religious beliefs.

It was Nixon, Roberts said, who started “pious presidential pandering” to play to the religious. He explained that Nixon, a Quaker, occasionally went to church, preferring to hold Sunday services in the White House. However, Nixon tended to stay away from the subject of religion.

Instead, he used overt religiosity as a code.

“Nixon’s strategy was to win the Southern white vote. Many in the South were racists and religious. He realized a direct racist appeal couldn’t be done. But he did appeal to them through the use of code phrases familiar to Southern whites such as ‘states’ rights’ and ‘law and order.’”

In drawing his extensively prepared comments to a close, Roberts returned to his theme of a town square.

“The vacant public square is under attack. Many voters calculate to use religion to determine who they’ll vote for. It’s now factored into the strategy. The fate of the public square hangs in the balance.”

Labels: Abraham Lincoln, America, church-state, Dan Roberts, history, John Shulson, politics, religion, Richard Nixon, Thomas Jefferson

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, September 29, 2008

Documentary Examines Role of Christian Faith in History of Freedom

By Elena Garcia
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Sep. 24 2008

If it weren’t for the Christian faith, the birth of freedom and liberty would not have been possible, according to a new documentary from the Action Institute.

In “The Birth of Freedom,” Action Institute takes a look at key freedom fighters and associated documents to trace the historical development of the principles of liberty and freedom that endow Americans with “unalienable” rights as “equal” men.

From the plight of slave abolitionist William Wilberforce and America’s founding father Thomas Jefferson to civil rights figure the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the documentary shows how the Christian faith was inextricably linked to their cries for freedom.

“Think of what a scandal it would be if we were to say the abolitionists should have kept their Christian faith out of the struggle against slavery. Rev. Martin Luther King should have kept his Christian faith out of the struggle for civil rights. People who fought against the terrible crimes committed in the name of eugenics should have kept their faith out of politics,” said Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton University in the documentary.

The film also suggests that the idea of human rights was created by theologians.

The documentary, which has been screened to select audiences earlier this year, was shown at an exclusive premiere to a crowd of Christian bloggers at the 2008 Godblogcon over the weekend.

In conjunction with “The Birth of Freedom,” Action Media has also been releasing a series of short clips that provide additional insight into key issues presented but not covered in the film.

On Monday, the organization released its fourth short video in the series which examines "Poverty in Medieval Europe." New videos are released every Monday.

The Mission of the Acton Institute is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.

Labels: Action Institute, Christianity, Elena Garcia, freedom, Godblogcon, liberty, Martin Luther King Jr., Thomas Jefferson, William Wilberforce

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, March 03, 2008

Revolutionary religion revealed

Monday, March 3, 2008

By Sally Pollak
Free Press Staff Writer

Book Review: "Revolutionary Spirits: The Enlightened Faith of America's Founding Fathers" by Gary Kowalski.

The book focuses on the beliefs and interests of six men who were influential and instrumental in the founding of the nation: Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

These leaders, Kowalski said, were "original and idiosyncratic religious thinkers." Kowalski said he would characterize all of them in two ways:

Religious naturalists: The men found God in nature rather than scripture or the traditional revelations.

Religious liberals: They believed that faith should flourish, but it should do so in the private sphere -- within a certain "inviolable zone of personal freedom that neither the state nor the church can intrude upon," Kowalski said.

Kowalski's interest in researching and writing about the faith of the founding fathers was driven by what he thinks are common misperceptions about who these men were and what they believed in. There are many people who believe the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation by a group of men who were devout believers in the bible, Kowalski said.

He learned that the founding fathers were curious thinkers with an interest in science and philosophy. They were comfortable asking questions that yielded ambiguous and complex answers. Their insistence on the separation of church and state was intended to help religious freedom and religious diversity flourish -- and an effort to prevent the submission of certain religions by a dominant faith, Kowalski said. They were religious pluralists who believed the nation benefited from a diversity of faiths.

"I think the founders would be disturbed by the way journalists and voters seem to be applying a religious screen to the presidential candidates," he said. "They were discreet about their religious beliefs, and never paraded them for purposes of gaining votes. They'd be dismayed to see the way candidates are expected to profess their piety as great church-goers -- as though that's a qualification for public office. The idea that God identified with some party platform would've been completely foreign to their thinking."

Kowalski used a combination of primary and secondary sources for his research. Private correspondence, including condolence letters sent when family members died, revealed insights into the men's beliefs, he said.

Kowalski writes that Washington "deliberately avoided using the word 'God' in his public statements."

He notes that Jefferson put together his own bible, the first version titled "The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth." In his bible, Jefferson eliminated miracles -- including the virgin birth.

Adams, who was interested in scientific inquiry, had a particular interest in astronomy. He speculated about life on other planets and the connectedness of the universe, writing that "it is highly probable every particle of matter influences and is influenced by every other particle in the whole collected universe."

"The founders believed and hoped that religion would be a cohesive social force," Kowalski said. "They believed that all denominations share some of the same values -- justice, love, mercy -- and that religion lists us above narrow self-interests in its concern for the public good."

Labels: America, Founding Fathers, Gary Kowalski, George Washington, John Adams, Liberal, naturalism, religion, Sally Pollak, Thomas Jefferson

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Founders and religion: Is this what they had in mind?

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

The strength of any nation is found in its heritage. America is fast becoming a nation without a heritage.

According to Donald Lutz in "The Origins of American Constitutionalism," during the two decades of our nation's founding, there was one book quoted by our founders more than any other. This book states a very important principle: "Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set."

The book is the Bible, and the quote is Proverbs 22:28.

America has been working overtime this last half century to expunge from the public sphere as many of the ancient landmarks it can get its hands on, i.e., our country's Christian heritage.

See if you can answer the following questions.

1. Shortly after signing the Declaration of Independence, which committee member proposed that the official seal of our brand-new nation should be a depiction of the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night?

2. Which president, acting as chairman of the school board, authored the first plan of education adopted by the city of Washington, D.C., which used the Bible and Isaac Watts' "Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs" as the primary books for teaching reading?

3. Which of our Founding Fathers, who also became a president, said, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus"?

Answers: If you answered Thomas Jefferson to any of the above questions, you are correct in every instance. I asked questions about Jefferson because he is often considered the least religious of all our Founding Fathers.

The debate as to whether Jefferson was a Christian, deist, or atheist misses the point that Jefferson, in his own writings and official acts as president, supported the teachings of the Bible.

Why are these facts about Jefferson and similar facts about other Founding Fathers no longer taught in public schools? Is it because we are kowtowing to Big Brother? In the public school district where I teach second grade, my students often tattle on one another by saying, "So-and-so said the s' word"— the "s" word being "stupid."

Sadly, as a teacher, I feel I should always be looking over my shoulder for tattlers before I say the "g" word in class. The "g" word is God.

It wasn't always this way in America. It wasn't until 1962 that our Supreme Court decided voluntary student participation in reciting a school-board-sponsored prayer was "unconstitutional." A little arithmetic tells us that for nearly the first 200 years of our nation's history, neither most people nor the Supreme Court saw conflict between our nation's Christian heritage and our Constitution.

Remember, the same man who penned the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" in a personal letter to reassure a group of Baptists that its religious liberties would not be trampled upon by the Congress, is the same man who, while president, installed the Bible and a book of Psalms and hymns to teach reading in a public school system.

Could it be that Jefferson never intended his phrase to be used as a substitute for the First Amendment, which does not contain the words "wall," "church," "separation" or "state"? In speaking of the Supreme Court, Jefferson wrote to William Jarvis in 1820, "The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."

Our country's roots are seeped in the Christian religion. To erase this fact from our nation's heritage is to erase the very character of our nation itself. And a nation without a heritage, without a genuine history, is a faceless nation, a weak nation, a nation that places itself in grave danger of losing the very freedoms and liberties our Founding Fathers fought for.

It is further a nation that can only lose in confrontations with other nations and peoples who cling tenaciously to their own heritage, whatever it may be.

— Christina Wilson lives in Westlake Village.

Labels: Americans, Christianity, Christina Wilson, God, heritage, public school, Thomas Jefferson