Evidently the letter kosta50 cites was a diplomatic communiqué to the Sultan of Tripoli in 1785. The United States was then engaged in suing for "peace" with this powerful Islamic ruler in order to get the Barbary Pirates off the backs of American shipping in the Mediterranean. The U.S. simply couldn't afford to pay the tribute necessary to prevent the seizure of American cargos, and the capture and enslavement of American seamen.
Kosta is never very particular about issues of "context." But it seems clear to me that a speech crafted to appeal to the sensibilities of an Asiatic autocrat is probably not the place to go to look for essential statements relative to John Adams' confession of conscience, or for clues as to what the DoI means.
David McCullough — Adams' great biographer — has said that, although Thomas Jefferson was the "pen" of the American Revolution (i.e., of the DoI), John Adams was its "voice." BTW, Adams was not a Hindu, nor a Buddhist, nor a Confucian, Mohammedan, Gaia worshipper, whatever. He was a Christian man, heart and soul.
Kosta's general M.O. is that of a rationalist. He has little use (it appears) for the empirical approach to understanding reality. An analogy might help clarify this point.
It's as if kosta were a butterfly hunter. He goes out there with his net, and captures the little critturs, then immediately takes 'em back to his workshop, and pins them down on display boards. Then he is free to go back anytime and admire these now-dead artifacts, and thinks that they can actually tell him something about butterflies....
An empiricist would say, however, you learn a heck of a lot more about butterflies by observing them in their natural context, in their actual environment, by watching their behavior WRT all the other constituents of natural reality operating within that context. THEN you can form an idea of "butterfly." All those dynamics are missing, of course, from any inspection of a dead artifact on a display board. But kosta does not seem to miss those dynamics! He doesn't think he needs to know anything about them to understand what a "butterfly" is.
In short, to kosta, words are just so many butterflies tacked down dead as doornails on a display board. CONTEXT does not matter at all.
Or so it seems to me. If kosta thinks my analysis here is unfair, he can instruct me as to why that is.
Thank you ever so much, dear YHAOS, for your absolutely marvelous essay/post!
EXCELLENT POINTS.
Really? I wonder what you consider "Christian?" Someone who denies Trinity? Someone who denies the divinity of Jesus? Someone who calls himself a "church-going animal?"
Would a "Christian man, heart and soul" write the following?
I mean, when you become the favorite source of quotes for atheists, claiming to be a "Christian man, heart and soul" sounds a little naïve at best, if not outright misinformed. Speaking of context...
If kosta thinks my analysis here is unfair, he can instruct me as to why that is.
To me context matters, of course. Like most people I make a decision (for a variety of reasons) how much of the context serves to convey a message. Sometimes it's a lot, and sometimes it's not.
I love the butterfly metaphor - excellent!
I think formal group actions, adopted and published are even more useful.
After three years of war, the Continental Congress in the first of three instances Novak identifies for us gave out official thanksgiving decrees. Novak points out that in the first of these in 1779:
"In 1779 the Congress urged the nation 'humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God' to ask 'that he would establish the independece of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue.' "
We can all quote poach and find lots of items to use in making our points, but when I get seriously thoughtful about the issue I like to go to the original actions, writings and original sources and look at them in-whole.
The Continental Congress being aware on its first day of action the variety of denominations represented by the various delegates spent its initial time arriving at an agreement about how to begin its deliberations and settled on a prayer to be given and resolved that it be prepared and no action be taken or deliberations held until it was delivered the next morning in a formal manner with these men on their knees.
Novak quotes Sam Adams in arriving at who should deliver it, "Sam Adams arose to say he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country." My point is that we, as a people, couldn't even bring ourselves to think of our nation's future without formally deciding how to begin such meetings with proper prayer -- hardly the actions of people that didn't see all actions of their lives in a full religous context.
Again, let's let Michael Novak draw on the historical writings to illustrate this but this time let's jump past those fellows fighting for liberty (assuming that foxhole limitation might have made them too ready to call on the religious instinct or remnent) and go to the next two generations, those that created the Constitution and their children observed after 1800 by de Tocqueville.
In this matter of religous faith, the Americans were altogether different from their contemporaries in Europe. "There is no country in the world", Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "in which the boldest of the theories of eighteenth-century philosophers are put so effectively into practice as in America. Only their anti-religous doctrines have never made any headway in that country." Indeed Tocqueville went further, "For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of one without the other." In this America is not at all like France, "In France I have seen the spirits of religion and freedom almost always marching in opposite directions. In America I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land."Again the historical writing of the time supports your position entirely.
Now we all are aware of an historical distinction. France had an Established church for the whole nation and the States, previously as colonies but then as states within the nation, had different established churches that were established or not within each state individually and no person was confined in the thoughts of their hearts by a religion they could not escape or put into practice -- "free thinkers" (as defined in that age, Diests) included.
This historical distintion made possible for the spirit of freedom relating to government and the state to exist without conflict with organized religion in this land alone.