Replies

Three things pop out at me.

They did not think that the mysteries of divine grace, predestination, disputes over faith and works, dissertations about the real or the symbolic presence of the Saviour in the Eucharist, and all the rest were really necessary for good living and good citizenship.

They are not necessary for good living OR good citizenship.
They help, but are not necessary

Either education has not really spread very widely

IMO, in America, there were two, maybe three, generations that actually widely educated.
Before that it was either too expensive or wasn't considered necessary.
After that it is indoctronation.

Therefore a conservative cannot be a democrat. But he can be a republican. He cannot be a Christian except in the way that the Founding Fathers were Christian – able to sort out the truth from the falsehood in thousands of years of G-dtalk.

This is where I disagree with the author completely.
A conservative CAN be a christian, in every sense of the word as we know it today.
What he cannot be is a religious fanatic.

most conservatives and many other Americans would agree that a return to the values and ideas of the Founding Fathers of our Republic would be desirable.

Going no further than the first sentence I disagree strongly. The concept State's rights is dead to conservatives though they occassionally mouth support for it. Their loyalty is to the concept of nation and not to the ideals of liberty. The founders concept of free trade with all and entangling alliances with none is greeted with total contempt by today's conservatives. They wish to conserve the global power built since 1898 and have no use for the founders ideals on foriegn policy matters.

I will skip over the religious beliefs or non beliefs discussed here and focus on this - A conservative honors the past and seeks to learn from it. - Again I disagree. Conservatives only selectively honor the past and we learn nothing from experience. Just wave some flags, cite God in a few lines and put an (R) in front of a name and all is well.

Here's a response I sent to Ravitch:

Mr. Ravitch,

In this article you define "deism" as "essentially the belief that true religion must be viewed as natural not revealed." Revealed religion, I presume, requires a revealer. Natural religion only requires the natural order, not a creator/revealer. Blessedness, then, must flow from the study of this natural order. So, prayer, which invokes the intervention of a creator/revealer would be inconsistent with a true "deist." Consider "Franklin's Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention":

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=19

"... I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.' "

Hardly the sentiments of a sincere deist.

And from "Religous Founders? Read Their Writings":

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=58

I am constrained to express my adoration of . . . the Author of my existence . . . [for] His forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state. Robert Treat Paine, Signer of the Declaration (Last Will and Testament)

My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly! 14 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

These founders must not subscribe to your definition of deism.

You say want more Republicans, and only Christians who can "separate truth from falsehood in thousands of years of G-dtalk." Of course such a Christian is not one who actually believes any of things about God and Jesus many of the founders did (see Paine and Rush above for just two). And as far as I can tell, Christians did not fare well under the fruit of Voltaire and Rousseau, that is, the French Revolution. Washington in his farewell address (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=12) warned us against parties and the excesses natural to them.

No, we need real Christians in Government. That is why we still have a Republic, while the French have had several.

--Larry

* * *

And here was his reply:

Yes, yes. the Founders used traditional language often to show they
accepted the normative religious rhetoric, but they had very different views
among themselves. NR

* * *

He dismisses such talk as "normative religious rhetoric." How convenient. Words which are inconsistent with deeds are hypocracy. A deist, who by definition believes the demiurge put it all in motion and forgot about it, does not pray.

John Eidsmoe in "Christianity and the Consitution" looks at the religious affiliation of the founders who had both political as well as doctrinal differences. Differences do not a deist make.

The author wrote: The founders of our Republic were almost to a man Deists. What is Deism? It is essentially the belief that true religion must be viewed as natural not revealed. This means that the Bible must be viewed as the product of an earlier and much less enlightened age, with wisdom to impart to be sure, a good deal of wisdom, but wisdom tied to dogmatic nonsense, superstition, and a conception of G-d which does violence to the highest strivings of the human race.

The author went on to say that Jefferson was deist, claiming Jefferson was "emancipated from a belief in an anthropomorphic God who rewarded and punished on the basis of odd dogmas which can neither be explained or proven".

Jefferson wrote this regarding his belief (his belief in what Jesus taught):

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.

2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

Jefferson believed there was one God. So did Jesus. Jesus said, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" (Matthew 19:17), and. ". . . Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29). See also Mark 12:32-34.

Jefferson believed "That there is a future state of rewards and punishments." So did Jesus.

Jefferson believed that to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion. Jesus said, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Since the Law of the Lord is the same thing that Jefferson considered to be the sum of all religion, I believe Jefferson was correct.

I cannot explain the author's statements, except that maybe the author misunderstood Jefferson's frequent objections to Calvinistic doctrine. I have my own problems with Calvin, but that in no way implies that I do not believe every word of God. Like Jefferson, I place more faith in the commandment of the Lord than in the understanding of men. Or, as John said, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us" (1 John 3:23-24); and, "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." (1 John 4:12)