A Detroit News columnist worth reading

Well...

Belief in God or in Christianity was different for people of the same era as the Founding Fathers than it is for us. "Natural rights" were not necessarily dictated by a belief in God or in Christianity but in reason, nature and the ability of men to govern themselves by a mutual grant of power and understanding with other citizens.

"Ascribed rights that couldn't be dictated by a local lord," were assigned to that of the will of the People, then nature then a divinity. That was an important concept for the Founders. Power comes from the People, God doesn't really come into the equation because He doesn't have to.

The Founding Fathers were a complex group of men and its not really possible to "categorize" them neatly - especially on religion. Washington, himself transitional figure equal only to maybe Cincinnatus - an important figure from history 2,300 years earlier, had complex and ambiguous ideas about his religion.

---

by: LH @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:36:35 AM UTC

...

We all know the story of how Jefferson clipped the metaphysical stuff out of the Bible and basically reduced it to a book of best practices, and how a lot of the Founders were technically diests rather than theists. It's also true that American Christianity has changed significantly over the years (the Christian End of World cult, for example, didn't yet exist). We also know that John Adams was a deeply devout Christian. So, yeah, they were a complex group of people.

The idea of natural rights, however, comes from the idea that they are inalienable and sourced in God. That was especially true of people who were deeply religious. If you believe in God, you don't tend to think of things that exist outside of God, like what  you're describing, because God is present in everything. The idea is that if man can give you rights, as you describe, then man can take rights. Inalienable rights to life and liberty, however, came from God and man cannot undo what God has done.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 15:10:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inalienable Rights

The development of modern liberalism and human-rights were closely connected to the theory etiamsi daremus non esse Deum. Rights were based on nature and did not need God to be valid.  

---

by: LH @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 16:02:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We can go around and around on this...

However, from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Enlightenment might have started us down the path towards humanism, but if you believe in God then -- unless you're a deist -- you tend to believe that he exists everywhere, including in Nature, which he created (hence: their Creator).

Look, I'm an atheist and a fan of The Enlightenment, but there's also the hard headed reality that the vast bulk of people at the time of the nation's Founding were more apt to go to church and believe that God was the source of everything.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 17:13:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Discussion has been a good break

Discussion has been a good break from the Brewer/Johnson brick-a-back, and, no, I don't want to go round and round on this either.

But the point needs to be made, that the only mention of a divinity is in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration also has no legal authority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights themselves are silent on a Creator.

The Founders, mainly, but not all, believed that rights were derived from nature and the power to govern came form those governed, and a king was not the source of those rights. Recall, that the Founders needed a theory to break the king's assertion that he himself ruled by Divine Right.

The old syllogism: Creator-->King--->The People

The new order: Nature-->The People-->The Government

---

by: LH @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 20:15:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're missing a very important point here.

The new order is incomplete for people who believe in God. To them, it looks something like this:

God--->Creation (nature)--->The People--->Government

We're talking about how society views itself here, not the law or the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on the Creator because it is the basis for American laws, and as such is a secular document. The Declaration of Independence, holding no legal powers, is a political statement. But, it pretty clearly says that God is the source for natural law. And, who wrote it? Jefferson, the guy who made his own Bible.

But, yeah, this is a healthy break from the inner-party squabbling.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 20:54:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For Most

For most of the Founding Fathers, this is closer:

(Creator-->)Nature-->The People-->Government

For the last two weeks:

...Brewer<-->Johnson<-->Brewer<-->Johnson...

HaHa...

---

by: LH @ Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 03:59:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Adams might not be

... recognized by the religious right as "christian" by their definition. Although raised Congregationalist (already suspect by religious right), he ended his life a Unitarian. Since then, that denomination has become even more liberal.

---

by: William Allen Simpson @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 17:04:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Christianity overall has changed dramatically

At the time of the Revolution, we hadn't even seen the first major influxes of immigrants from Catholic countries. And, there was already a healthy diversity of religious philosophies here.

That's all changed, and quite a lot of it is steeped not just in shifts in religious beliefs but in social traditions that affect how people perceive their spirituality.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 17:22:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]