RE: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
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.
RE: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Surely one can be an atheist and accept the core moral principles of the Declaration. But I think that atheists generally wouldn't accept some of the rhetoric, especially the confidence in divine Providence or God as Judge. That doesn't sound to me as the 'unknowable' or the 'unprovable' -- it sounds to me as a reference to, well, the very God the rejection of whose existence is the hallmark of atheism. All this is fine; I'm not religious myself, and I'm delighted that one can accept the core moral principles of the Declaration without accepting religion. But I can't deny that the Declaration includes religious rhetoric. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence In a message dated 12/19/2004 12:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that one can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the Declaration. It's no longer obvious to me that one needs to be a theist of any stripe to accept the principles in the Declaration. Some atheists argue that theism rests on a first principle which cannot be explained namely, God exists and is the foundation of existence and morality. The atheist challenges this by arguing what explains God's existence. Now I'm aware that some philosophers, St. Anslem, Leibniz, Plantinga and others, believe that the necessity of God's existence can be proven. But few atheists find these arguments persuasive. Thus, for the atheist, theists assume without explaining the claims about God's existence. But, of course, atheists cannot explain or justify their first principles any more than theists can explain their. This stalemate permits some atheists to accept claims about God as referring to the unknowable or the unprovable. In this sense, the Declaration's reference to God can be accepted by atheists also. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
In a message dated 12/20/2004 4:47:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I inferred that because most Americans of theera were Christians, the public meaning of the document would have beenunderstood as referring to the God that they generally believed in. Has anyone done the difficult research of trying to ascertain how many people during the Founding generations actually believed in a God, whether interventionist or not? The problem, of course, is when X (a belief in God, democracy, republicanism) is a cultural imperative it seems enormously difficult to fashion a research strategy that can ferret out people's real beliefs (on the assumption that the rhetoric of cultural imperatives often mask how people actually regard an issue). I suspect such research would be difficult when the object is contemporary society, let alone a society existing two hundred years ago. In any event, is there any research purporting to shed light on whether publicreferences to "God" had in mind (1) a particular God, (2) a general reference to some God or other, or (3) simply the recognition that others in society use the term in the first two senses, and therefore if the reference has rhetorical force why not use it as well to make an independently justified point. In other words, what was the public meaning(s) of the term "God" in the founding generation? And is there empirical support for answers to this question? Bobby Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
my point is that TJ and his generation were capable of using religous language, and chose not to, instead using diestic terms like nature's god (as opposed to the Bible's God?) and their creator as opposed to God. Giving a modern definition to diesim for the 18th century makes no sense; if you want to understand the Dec. of Ind. then use 18th century understandings fo the language and of deism. Volokh, Eugene wrote: The Great God of the Bible? The Father, Son and Holy Ghost? The Jehovah? These would have been odd things to say in even a non-Deistic document. Divine Providence and Supreme Judge of the world were, I suspect, much more normal and idiomatic ways of referring to the Christian God when discussing his role as an interventionist or judging God. And these phrases suggest that while the Declaration was meant to be an ecumenical document, it wasn't meant to be a Deistic one under the modern definition I give. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:18 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene Subject: Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence Had TJ wanted to use words like the Great God of the Bible or The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or The Jehovah, he certainly could have. The language of the Declaration (and the utter lack of any mention of God in the Constitution) illustrates the general diestic flavor of the founding and the general view of the founding generation to avoid discussion of religion in their political development. It is not insignifcant, I think that none of the existing records of the federal convention contain any references to God or the Bible (much less the 10 C) and that when Franklin suggesting beginning the sessions with prayer, as a desperate attempt avoid a collapse of the Convention, he was politely ignored. Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Volokh, Eugene wrote: The Great God of the Bible? The Father, Son and Holy Ghost? The Jehovah? These would have been odd things to say in even a non-Deistic document. Divine Providence and Supreme Judge of the world were, I suspect, much more normal and idiomatic ways of referring to the Christian God when discussing his role as an interventionist or judging God. And these phrases suggest that while the Declaration was meant to be an ecumenical document, it wasn't meant to be a Deistic one under the modern definition I give. Eugene The problem lies, as I stated before, with the modern definition. The key is not how a dictionary defines it today, but how deists themselves defined it in the 18th century. As I stated previously, in 18th century deism there were two keys to distinguishing between deism and theism in its various forms. First, deists rejected much or all of the claimed revelations upon which the religious were based, Christianity in particular (see Paine's Age of Reason, for instance). Second, deists believed that one could discern the truth about God based upon reason alone, hence there was no need for such revelations. That is a pretty radical difference from the Christian belief that scripture is necessary to know the truth about God. The notion of an entirely non-interventionist clockmaker God was not necessary for deism then, nor is it necessarily now. That notion comes more from Spinoza than it does from the various 18th century deists like Voltaire or Paine. So the problem here is in the definition, not the document itself. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
In a message dated 12/19/2004 12:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that onecan be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of theDeclaration. It's no longer obvious to me that one needs to be a theist of any stripe to accept the principles in the Declaration.Some atheists argue that theism rests on a first principle which cannot be explained namely, God exists and is the foundation of existence and morality. The atheist challenges this by arguing what explains God's existence. Now I'm aware that some philosophers, St. Anslem,Leibniz, Plantinga and others,believe that the necessity of God's existence can be proven. But few atheists find these arguments persuasive. Thus, for the atheist, theists assume without explaining the claims about God's existence.But, of course, atheists cannot explain or justify their first principles any more than theists can explain their. This stalemate permitssome atheists to accept claims about God as referring to the "unknowable" or the "unprovable." In this sense,the Declaration's reference to God can be accepted by atheists also. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
RE: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Title: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
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 "divineProvidence" are rife not only
in Judaism, but, of course, in many other
religioussystems.And, by the way, "Laws ... of Nature's God"
sounds, at the end of the day, more Catholic than resonant with
theProtestants whoarrivedin 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 believethat 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, EugeneSent: Sat 12/18/2004 10:39 PMTo:
Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 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?EugenePaul Finkelman writes:Divine
source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic
"creator" or "nature's God."
___
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.
RE: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Bobby's view of the breadth of the possible meanings of the term God in the Declaration is somewhat like my view of the breadth of the meaning of the same term in the Pledge of Allegiance. The vast majority of Americans can say the Pledge with integrity, I think, each giving the term his or her own meaning as whatever he or she considers to be that which is ultimate and thus above the state. Those who cannot do so, can simply omit the phrase. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/19/2004 9:39 AM Subject: Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence In a message dated 12/19/2004 12:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that one can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the Declaration. It's no longer obvious to me that one needs to be a theist of any stripe to accept the principles in the Declaration. Some atheists argue that theism rests on a first principle which cannot be explained namely, God exists and is the foundation of existence and morality. The atheist challenges this by arguing what explains God's existence. Now I'm aware that some philosophers, St. Anslem, Leibniz, Plantinga and others, believe that the necessity of God's existence can be proven. But few atheists find these arguments persuasive. Thus, for the atheist, theists assume without explaining the claims about God's existence. But, of course, atheists cannot explain or justify their first principles any more than theists can explain their. This stalemate permits some atheists to accept claims about God as referring to the unknowable or the unprovable. In this sense, the Declaration's reference to God can be accepted by atheists also. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ATT28787.txt ___ 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
I would not lump the Declaration with the Constitution in terms of God-consciousness. The two times are radically different. The Declaration was penned at a time when Americans believed that they were God's chosen for the first successful republican form of government in history. The optimism was Enlightenment-inspired and as much as hubris as faith. The Constitution was drafted after they learned they were an utter failure at crafting government the first time around (the Articles). The Calvinist instinct at the time to distrust all humans kicked in with some force, so the focus was on how to limit and deter the power of those in positions of power--not on how they were ascending to the greatest free government in history. They no longer believed they were God's only chosen, but rather fallible men who could do no better than to experiment with whatever structures and people they had at hand. The horizon was no longer God's horizon, but man's. The result isa Constitution that focuses on structure and does not engage in God-talk. In either case, it is impossible to argue this is a "Christian" country with any plausibility. It's as much as Christian as it is Enlightenment, Greek, and Roman, theology and philosophy, which is to say it is all of them put together and more. As for Franklin's suggestion regarding prayer, it was not so much politely ignored as no one was willing to pay for the cost of having a cleric come into their deliberations and deliver a prayer... Marci Had TJ wanted to use words like "the Great God of the Bible" or The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or The Jehovah, he certainly could have. The language of the Declaration (and the utter lack of any mention of God in the Constitution) illustrates the general diestic flavor of the founding and the general view of the founding generation to avoid discussion of religion in their political development. It is not insignifcant, I think that none of the existing records of the federal convention contain any references to God or the Bible (much less the 10 C) and that when Franklin suggesting beginning the sessions with prayer, as a desperate attempt avoid a collapse of the Convention, he was politely ignored. ___ 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.
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. ___ 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
It seems to me that Eugene is right. The God of the Declaration is theologically minimal, which means that it is consistent with common understandings of Deism and orthodox Christianity. It seems to me that one can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the Declaration. One may be a Christian and see the God of the Declaration as congenial to one's theology, but it does not follow that one must be a Christian in order to see the God of the Declaration as congenial to one's theology. Frank On 12/18/04 10:39 PM, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Whatever conclusion we might draw about the character of the Declaration's God/Creator/Judge/Providence, it seems to me that the asssertion that the First Amendment prohibits the government and its officials from stating that it is true that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights is an assertion that is not readily evident, to say the least. And to return to the discussion that started off this thread, my guess is that this is what is meant by saying that the Declaration is being banned from public school. No one (?) thinks that the Declaration can't be read as a historical document, in much the same way as we read the Law of the Twelve Tables, Hammurabi, or The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the Klan's Kourier. The important question is, can you say anything more substantive about the relative claims made in these documents? Richard Dougherty -- Original Message -- From: Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:59:56 -0600 It seems to me that Eugene is right. The God of the Declaration is theologically minimal, which means that it is consistent with common understandings of Deism and orthodox Christianity. It seems to me that one can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the Declaration. One may be a Christian and see the God of the Declaration as congenial to one's theology, but it does not follow that one must be a Christian in order to see the God of the Declaration as congenial to one's theology. Frank On 12/18/04 10:39 PM, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. ___ 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. ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
In a message dated 12/19/2004 1:19:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not insignifcant, I think that none of the existing records of the federal convention contain any references to God or the Bible (much less the 10 C) and that when Franklin suggesting beginning the sessions with prayer, as a desperate attempt avoid a collapse of the Convention, he was politely ignored. The point not to be lost in your rush to congratulate a group of men whose diversity of religious affiliations prevented them from acceding to the choices of others in prayer leaders is that Franklin spoke the words that he did, when he did, as he did, knowing what he did. Those words knock a lot of nonsense back on its haunches. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
