We could also add the "oath or affirmation" clause, which in effect denies the
need to recognize God to hold office (which is slightly different, perhaps,
from no religious test). While some religous people today which to claim the
Dec of I or the Constitution as being religous, the criticism as the time was
from the other direction. antifederalist ministers in New England (especially)
denounced the Constitution for not being religious and later denounced
Jefferson as an athiest or worse.
Paul Finkelman
Quoting Sanford Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quite frankly, I think that that there is not a scintilla of
> language in the Declaration that bespeaks "Chrstianity" as a
> religious doctrine involving a Savior., etc. (There's nothing
> in the Declaration that would suggest that Christmas or Easter
> would be of any importance.) Theories of "divine Providence"
> are rife not only in Judaism, but, of course, in many other
> religious systems. And, by the way, "Laws ... of Nature's
> God" sounds, at the end of the day, more Catholic than
> resonant with the Protestants who arrived in the New World,
> who generally emphasized saving grace more than good works
> defined through fidelity to law. (Indeed, Christianity has
> gotten a lot of mileage out of criticizing Judaism for
> excessive "legalism.")
>
> The best econstittuional vidence for a Christian America is
> the skipping of Sunday when counting the days for presidential
> vetoes and the reference, at the very end of the Constitution
> (though not part of what we usually look to for legal
> significanc) to "the year of our Lord." On the other hand,
> one of the truly great provisions of the original Constitution
> is Article VI and its explicit repudiation of any religious
> tests for holding office, including, presumably, the necessity
> to believe that the dating system for years has anything
> whatsoever to do with "our [collective] Lord," just as one can
> operate under the Jewish calendar without believing for an
> instant that the world was created some 5500 years ago.
>
> sandy
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh,
> Eugene
> Sent: Sat 12/18/2004 10:39 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of
> Independence
>
>
>
> I'm not positive, but it sounds to me like Paul is saying that
> the vision of God expressed in the Declaration is generally
> Deistic. Deism, as I understand it, is defined as "The
> belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the
> universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life,
> exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no
> supernatural revelation" (I drew this from dictionary.com,
> which is based on the American Heritage Dictionary).
>
> But even if "endowed by their Creator" and "Laws . . . of
> Nature's God" are as consistent with Deism as with
> Christianity, can the same be said about "appealing to the
> Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our
> intentions" and "a firm reliance on the protection of divine
> Providence"? The rhetoric, at least, sounds like a God who at
> least judges people after their deaths ("Supreme Judge of the
> world") and perhaps even protects people in this life
> ("protection of divine Providence").
>
> Now it may well be that Jefferson didn't fully believe in this
> rhetoric himself: Politicians may often use language that
> they think of as appealing to the public even if they
> themselves might have put things differently in private life.
> But it sounds like the public meaning of the Declaration
> referred to a judging and perhaps even interventionist God,
> and not simply a creator. Or am I mistaken?
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
> Paul Finkelman writes:
>
> Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the
> Bible, but rather a diestic "creator" or "nature's God."
>
>
>
>
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
Univ. of Tulsa College of Law
2120 East 4th Place
Tulsa OK 74104-3189
Phone: 918-631-3706
Fax: 918-631-2194
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
