I recently referenced God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution by Thomas Kidd, which spoke of "five religious ideas connected far-flung and widely varied Americans." I summarized them in this way for my own records:
My main beef was that more rational leaning religious believers (nearly no one was really an "atheist") was given little coverage. Thomas Paine was covered a bit, but given the broad coverage of evangelicals, there should have been at least a chapter focused merely on such groups. For instance, a vignette on Benjamin Franklin's beliefs might have been helpful. Or, Joseph Priestly. Or, some pages on the development of Unitarian thought in general. After all, at least two Presidents thought it the best religion out there (maybe at least three -- Adams, Jefferson and Madison). More on deism too.
The First Amendment also received pretty brief coverage and the strict way Madison/Jefferson applied it is somewhat different than the somewhat milder summary provided. But, again, the book was worthwhile. Religion was an important aspect of revolutionary history, though I was not convinced it was as important in unifying the people above all else or anything. Religion was deemed important, the term at the minimum usually a belief in God and future rewards/punishments.* How the latter could be a result of "reason" ala Paine or Jefferson is unclear to me. Franklin once noted the value of such a thing, but Paine's comment that he hoped for such an afterlife seems more appropriate for rationalist philosophers.
"Religion" is also understood to mean at least part of that today. An afterlife with a heaven and hell is not deemed necessary by many, some not liking that sort of thing, but God seems to most people to be required. "God" however is not quite essential to some religious thought though some supernatural force or overall entity of some sort might be. If heaven and hell isn't necessary, this seems to rob a key aspect of religion under original thought. All carrot, no stick, so to speak.
It appears that the way to virtue (also protected via political means such as constitutional mechanisms) is broadly defined. "Religion" is not necessary driven by supernatural entities at all. After all, in many cases, that part of it is pretty unimportant in actual practice. Consider "secular" Jews who follow kosher rules. Do Catholics or some other sect pay much attention often to doctrine? Marriage ceremonies remain sacred even if done by atheists. In this sense, "religion" retains a special value even for many deemed not religious. Matters of conscience are not just key components of religion, but in some way religious per se. As Wikipedia notes:
The core belief in the opposition to torture or injustice of inequality along with the need to live a good life and do justice, perhaps with various rituals and guidelines along the way, often seems to me on the level of "religion" even without a God and/or an afterlife, particularly given the bloodless alternative sometimes shown, based on often lazy pragmatic or passionless responses. "Belief" at times has a negative connotation as does "religion" for some people, but the inner passion referenced here is part of what is at issue here. Rights that arise from God or human experience that has determined they should be "unalienable" because of their goodness are both of a special caliber.
Not to exaggerate, the book does something of a disservice in its unbalanced focus, "religion" as with "value voters" again open to limited meanings.
[Last few paragraphs added today.]
---
* Justice Stevens once noted "religion" was
[1] Disestablishment -- no religious persecutions, free exercise rights and no preferences; freedom will further religious belief and practice (growth of evangelistic faiths)The book did a decent job covering these themes and it's an important subject. My concern was that it focused too much on evangelicals. Several chapters were specifically about them, the others often largely about their activities. By the end, it got to be a bit repetitive. The book did cover other groups, but I think not well enough. Given the title, this was a bit annoying.
[2] Creator God as source and guarantor of human rights from a common creation/equality
[3] Threat to human society/self-government arising from human sinfulness / flawed human nature
[4] Importance of virtue -- growing from religion and republican teachings; the former relies on faith & religious practice, belief in future rewards/punishments as well as a "moral sense" from within and without
[5] God has role in society -- "providence" and it is correct to acknowledge this via prayer and thanks
My main beef was that more rational leaning religious believers (nearly no one was really an "atheist") was given little coverage. Thomas Paine was covered a bit, but given the broad coverage of evangelicals, there should have been at least a chapter focused merely on such groups. For instance, a vignette on Benjamin Franklin's beliefs might have been helpful. Or, Joseph Priestly. Or, some pages on the development of Unitarian thought in general. After all, at least two Presidents thought it the best religion out there (maybe at least three -- Adams, Jefferson and Madison). More on deism too.
The First Amendment also received pretty brief coverage and the strict way Madison/Jefferson applied it is somewhat different than the somewhat milder summary provided. But, again, the book was worthwhile. Religion was an important aspect of revolutionary history, though I was not convinced it was as important in unifying the people above all else or anything. Religion was deemed important, the term at the minimum usually a belief in God and future rewards/punishments.* How the latter could be a result of "reason" ala Paine or Jefferson is unclear to me. Franklin once noted the value of such a thing, but Paine's comment that he hoped for such an afterlife seems more appropriate for rationalist philosophers.
"Religion" is also understood to mean at least part of that today. An afterlife with a heaven and hell is not deemed necessary by many, some not liking that sort of thing, but God seems to most people to be required. "God" however is not quite essential to some religious thought though some supernatural force or overall entity of some sort might be. If heaven and hell isn't necessary, this seems to rob a key aspect of religion under original thought. All carrot, no stick, so to speak.
It appears that the way to virtue (also protected via political means such as constitutional mechanisms) is broadly defined. "Religion" is not necessary driven by supernatural entities at all. After all, in many cases, that part of it is pretty unimportant in actual practice. Consider "secular" Jews who follow kosher rules. Do Catholics or some other sect pay much attention often to doctrine? Marriage ceremonies remain sacred even if done by atheists. In this sense, "religion" retains a special value even for many deemed not religious. Matters of conscience are not just key components of religion, but in some way religious per se. As Wikipedia notes:
Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, [1] or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.[2] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.The true diversity here is apparent as is its importance in our history. Virtue can be obtained by a true belief and/or acceptance in/of a certain way of life that might not be "founded upon reverence of God," or done in such a way that it is even more rational and abstract as even found in much deistic thought. [To forestall compliant, yes, mainstream religious believers can be quite rational while certain nonbelievers of that path irrational.] The felt need for such a "way of life" can still apply, just as mere belief in God is not enough for true virtue.
The core belief in the opposition to torture or injustice of inequality along with the need to live a good life and do justice, perhaps with various rituals and guidelines along the way, often seems to me on the level of "religion" even without a God and/or an afterlife, particularly given the bloodless alternative sometimes shown, based on often lazy pragmatic or passionless responses. "Belief" at times has a negative connotation as does "religion" for some people, but the inner passion referenced here is part of what is at issue here. Rights that arise from God or human experience that has determined they should be "unalienable" because of their goodness are both of a special caliber.
Not to exaggerate, the book does something of a disservice in its unbalanced focus, "religion" as with "value voters" again open to limited meanings.
[Last few paragraphs added today.]
---
* Justice Stevens once noted "religion" was
a word understood primarily to mean "[v]irtue, as founded upon reverence of God, and expectation of future rewards and punishments," and only secondarily "[a] system of divine faith and worship, as opposite to others." S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (7th ed. 1785); accord, T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language 6th ed. (1796).This reaffirms some of the themes summarized above. He earlier noted that in time the protections of the First Amendment expanded from the primary concerns of the original era. It does warrant noting that even then "freedom of conscience" and the like was referenced, a term that also goes beyond how "religion" was understood then.