Founding Myth (Pounded a Bit Too Hard)

Andrew Seidel (Freedom From Religion Foundation) wrote the book Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is UN-AMERICAN. I agree with the basic idea, but damn, he is heavy-handed about it.

It is easiest to say that "Christian Nationalism" is un-American. This book was written during the Trump Administration. On various issues, there was a sort of "repeat, but worst" (darn sequels) flavor there. Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg, for instance, wrote about the issue back in the Bush43 days.  Things have just gotten worse in various ways.

The book provides a powerful argument about the importance of religious freedom and the problems of even non-conservative religious beliefs of various types.  I too question the basic logic of Jesus dying for our sins.  American values are based on reason and human self-government.  His discussion of the (brief) references to God in the Declaration of Independence alone is well recommended. 

The quick video on his website shows this, the author isn't just concerned about Christian nationalism and/or conservative Christians. He is an atheist and darn if Christianity and religion overall is a problem.  We do not really get a sense of what "religion" means until fairly late, and then it is a matter of divine authority.  Anyone who is half-way decent is basically deemed to be not really Christians.  

[What business it is for him to determine who is "Christian"?  He cites at one point one book that he found a good summary of the Bible's view on slavery.  I doubt something like that is not subject to debate around the margins, at the very least.  But, being "Christian" is quite different.]

Which is part of why at various points this book upset me.  I don't know (I sorta do) why time old things like poorly reasoned things (well, a book that emphasizes the supremacy of reason and did invite early on to disagree with him, does suggest a higher standard is necessary) still stress me out as much as they do.  I should be used to it by now.  I guess one is human.  

The book -- the Ten Commandments particularly are covered to show how they are anti-American -- basically uses a heavy-handed biblical originalism.  And, even there, we get the bad stuff slammed over our heads.  The Bible, for instance, has a lot of content that is quite liberal minded. The prophets rail against injustice and hypocritical religious theater.  Wisdom books talk about various subjects. And so on.

But, as with the usual focus on a few Founders (the usual suspects with others tossed in now and then), we get hit over the head with the bad stuff. Stuff that repeatedly is not (contra to the argument) "religious" as much as social reality that a religious book grants.  It is akin to those who damn the Constitution, original, since it factored in slavery.  

Admittedly, as a more comprehensive work, the Bible can not avoid the bad stuff as much.  Obviously, the Bible (he lower cases "god," but the Bible is the title of a book) has bad stuff in it.  Ancient philosophers glorified slavery too.  The idea that we need to accept some sort of set in stone biblical literalism, however, is not compelled by "Christianity" itself. 

The Ten Commandments has various provisions that are not American, including multiple ones regarding a sectarian god.  But, even the one about honoring parents is made out to simply be a way for religion to dominate, parents code here for (male) religious leaders.  The word "mother" is, however, in the darn commandment.  

The book resists an attempt to strip the surrounding text of commandments, but again, we need not take for granted the strict construction of conservative Christians.  It is surely appropriate to call them on it.  But, religion can include a "living" interpretation approach.  

So, the Sabbath and "covet" commandments grants that there are slaves.  The commandments do not command slavery.  An unreasoned interpretation, one the author argues is MORE CORRECT (he says the pro-slavery South had a better biblical argument), argues the Bible means slavery is good.  This is akin to using it to challenge modern day astronomy or history.  The rules that are commanded -- day off and coveting -- are applied across the board.  Even to requiring rest for slaves.  

There are so many examples that I'm not covering them all by half.  The "coveting" chapter doesn't really get around to saying that the commandment is narrow -- it focuses on "your neighbor" -- and what does "covet" mean, really?  There are different degrees, including one that means desiring in an unhealthy way.  Finally, is it really a good idea to covet your neighbor's wife?  I know coveting is capitalist and all, but is that?

We never are told, e.g., Moses very well might not have existed.  The book harms the reader by providing a simplistic view of the subject, which might please some readers, but it's a sugar rush, not a nutritious meal.  

A fuller account, still open to refutation (faith vs. reason etc.)  would recognize the book involves a range of myths, metaphors, exaggerations for effect, and parables. Not all fact.  Such things (especially the violence) can be challenged, but we can realize that a weak people recently conquered by a major empire talking tough might be compensating a bit. 

And, that is what this book seems to be doing.  I have not used this space to go into his argument too much in part because the basics are pretty familiar.  The book does go a step further from merely talking about Christian conservatives, so liberal Christians might feel wary.  That's okay.  

The problem is that he goes a step further than that and makes a selective case at that.  He notes that slavery did not arise from slavery, but  then puts much more blame on religion for slavery and the passions that led to the Civil War.  And so on.  The true story here is not quite so one-sided.  "Religion" is not just bad conservative Christianity or somewhat less bad (but not good) forms that are caricatured here too much.

I wish someone edited this book, toning it down something like a few levels at least.  The core has some pretty good points to make. Like Jefferson's gospels, I would take a good amount of stuff out.  There would be more room, but a few things could have been added anyhow.

BTW, he ends on an optimistic note that the conservative Christians are on their last legs.  This was before 2020/1 and so on.  That too might be pounding things a bit too hard/optimistically. 

===

The book is well sourced, which shows you that you can provide a lot of end notes, and still not get the whole story out.  

For instance, at one point, he says Jesus was the first person in the Bible to talk about hell.  A fuller account would have explained how the concept grew in the centuries before his career. 

There are a lot of interesting quotes and facts.  One reference to the importance of the right to remain silent cited U.S. v. Balsys, which turns out to be an interesting case not applying the right to incrimination that might arise out of the country.  

Involving a former Nazi, the fact the oral argument was on Hitler's birthday (4/20) is just amusing to me.