If 1864 strikes anyone as relatively late for a country that was supposedly God-centered from the beginning...that is a more than accurate reaction.
Speaking as someone who believes in God (and for that matter is a Christian), I am nonetheless not someone who thinks that America's founding was invested in religious passion. Or, rather, I'm not one who thinks that America's founding was the result of a particular form of religious passion.
It would be most accurate to say that America was invested, pre and post 1776, in religious debate. Although modern folks largely take for granted the concept of the separation of church and state--while acknowledging that politicians and voters are influenced by their religious beliefs--the position of the founders was both more commonsensical and more radical.
On the one hand, religious influence was assumed. For many founders, being religious was not all that different from being a solid member of a charity: it was what one did. Moral training was necessary to a democracy after all.
“I found that they all agreed with each other except about details; all thought that the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.”
“European Christianity has allowed itself to be intimately united with the powers of this world. Now that these powers are falling, it is as if it were buried under their ruins.”
Deism--to which many founding members belonged--was not a pretty, dressed-up, nice form of Christianity. In some cases, it wasn't notably Christian at all--at least, not by modern standards. Or, rather, it was culturally Christian as opposed to doctrinally Christian. And in some cases, it was frankly borderline atheism (nobody was actually atheistic in early America; that was going too far, so they went with the closest possibility).
In both cases, the phrase says more about the current climate in the United States at those times (1864 = Civil War; 1956 = Ten Commandments) than anything about America's origins. Pressing such a decision backwards onto the past is exactly that--creating a story about something that appears to have changed or faded: Once upon a time, Americans all believed...
You can learn a lot about the present from memorials: Star Trek:TOS, for instance, provides remarkable insights into the 1960s. But memorials are not the same as actual history.
2 comments:
America was influenced by a weird mixture of Enlightenment Philosophy and Christian Puritanism. Which is why it works so well, each balances the other. There were other influences of course. My Scots-Irish ancestors, who could go from going to church to shooting someone dead, weren't really adherents (generally) of either. Jews have been here longer that people realize too. The Founders were also pretty knowledgeable of Greek and Roman philosophy.
To add to what Matthew wrote. David Hackett Fischer's book "Albion's Seed, Four British Folkways in America" describes the four groups of English settlers to America. Each was English / Scottish and each had a distinct culture. They all had some type of religion but each viewed the application of faith very differently.
The marvel of America is the Puritans of New England and the Cavaliers of Virginia were able to find agreement. The Quakers of Pennsylvania simply wanted to get along and no one cared what the backcountry settlers of western Pennsylvania and western Virginia thought.
My reading is that a key to the American union is the enlightened leaders were tolerant of the respective revolutionaries of their culture because they trusted their countrymen to stop fighting when victory was realized. This perspective was especially aided by the Sons of Liberty in New England going back to their day jobs once the British left Boston. If instead the Sons of Liberty had started killing off their countrymen, as happened in the French revolution, then the American experiment would have failed.
The tolerant / trusting view of the early American political leaders of rebellious Americans is exemplified in George Washington's pardon of the leaders and key participants of the Whiskey Rebellion. This was a "insurrection". Yet when it had played out, Washington chose to extend mercy. And why? Because Washington saw that the government had won the political fight and proven its legitimacy. Doing more than that would be gratuitous.
A great question is what produced this desirable blend of social tolerance and trust? What produced the wisdom of seeing people as flawed but inherently good? Or at least, what produced the collective answer that the American people, despite their flaws, could be trusted to do good?
My hypothesis is the distinct commercial economy of America allowed this to happen. People developed trust because trust was how business was done. Early Americans had to develop a culture of trust because there was no alternative. So, why does it say on American money "In God we Trust". Because, as Hawkeye (MASH) answers to the question if he trusts Father Mulcahy: "It says I should on all my money. If you can't believe your money who can you believe?"
Post a Comment