Replies

Only by selective quotation...can it even be argued that Jefferson and Franklin were deists.

i would never argue about labels, but from looking at his life and writings it is pretty clear that franklin, while a christian, was not at all dogmatic and not even particularly religious. he was a product of enlightenment rationalism and clearly rejected the type of puritan psuedo-theocracy he'd experienced growing up in new england.

you talk about selective quoting, but neo-puritans themselves are quite fond of pointing to the mere mention of God in any of the framer's writing (included, laughably, the term 'anno domino') as evidence that they were both devout and activist.

I have gone deeply into the writings of Franklin. One of his efforts was to identify the characteristics of "universal religion." As a student of comparative religions he sought to identify the "common beliefs" of all the world's great religions. He concluded that the principles of the Ten Commandments were nearly universal in all religions.

As you note, that did not make him any less "a Christian" in his personal views -- witness the epitaph he wrote to be placed on his tombstone. Likewise, Jefferson on his tombstone did not have any reference to being President. But his support for the Virginia Act of Tolerance did appear on his tombstone.

Dealing with people who left volumes of writing behind them is, as you note, a dicey project. Advocates of any position known to man can be found in short quotes from Jefferson. However, anyone who spends hundreds of hours conversing with these people through their writings, knows the truth -- none of these people were atheists, not even Tom Paine. And almost all of them were Christians, plus a few who were Jewish.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "We Are Running for Congress -- Maybe," discussion thread on FR.

Post Script: I am not a "neo-" anything, and reject such labels. Instead, I follow the same philosophy that I urged on my students in a college class entitled, "American Political Theory."

On the first night of class (I taught pre-law and poli-sci majors at night), I said to them, "Do not trust conclusions given to you by any apparent expert, including me. Read the original documents. Reflect on them. And reach your own conclusions." In short, I approached politics the same way that Martin Luther approached religion.

Sadly, a good deal of the publis debate today on basic political issues amounts to no more than a war between supporters of conflicting assumptions, none of whom have read and understood the basic documents.