At least by the standards of their time, it seems. I've not read "Founding Faith," the new book by our Big Cheese Editor Steven Waldman, which he wrote after spending years hearing culture warriors of the left and right cherry-pick Founding Fathers' quotes to support their position on this or that contemporary contentious issue. But I did hear Steve's Fresh Air interview, and was surprised to learn from him how much religious intolerance and violence there was in colonial America. (Had I forgotten what I learned in school? Had I ever learned it?) Yes, religious pilgriims came to America to worship God as they desired ... and often to prevent the other pilgrims, especially those dirty rotten papists! -- from worshiping God as they desired.
Here's something else I learned from Steve's work. Here's a bit from Michael Dirda's review in the WaPo:
Religious fervor pervaded early American life, and church leaders, even more than today, wielded considerable political clout. Yet none of our history-book heroes of the Revolution could be viewed as anything but heterodox in his creed.Franklin, we learn, believed that God created the universe, then gave over its governing to various minor gods. (Waldman describes this as a form of deism, though it strikes me as vaguely Gnostic.) John Adams's "disdain for Calvinists was surpassed only by his contempt for Catholics," and he appears to have been equally disgusted with many facets of orthodox Christian theology. For instance, he refused to accept that one bite from an apple "damned the whole human Race, without any actual Crimes committed by any of them." Eventually, Adams joined a liberal Unitarian church, which emphasized Christ's teachings rather than his divinity.
George Washington was raised as an Anglican but seldom went to Sunday service, refused to kneel and never took communion. In many ways, he was more active as a freemason than as a Christian. But he spoke up strongly for religious tolerance, even during the Revolution: "While we are contending for our liberty," he wrote, "we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable." Waldman describes Thomas Jefferson as a "pious infidel" and James Madison as a "radical pluralist." Jefferson viewed Jesus as a moral teacher and nothing more: He actually cut up a copy of the Gospels, removing all references to miracles and any claims that Jesus was more than human.
Madison appears to have respected religion without being seriously attached to any sect in particular. But, like his fellow Virginians, he did feel strongly the need for tolerance, and it is to him that Waldman believes we owe our freedom of conscience. He helped frame the Constitution, which mentions neither Jesus nor God, and later the First Amendment.
But lest liberals take comfort in the idea that the Founding Fathers were Deists or secularists, Steve has news for you: there were limits to their religious liberalism.
Additionally here's Steve's explanation for how America's idea of religious freedom did develop from the Founders' ideas.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Massachusetts shows the evidence of their spiritual errors.
I'd say Massachusetts disproved Puritanism, to its eternal credit. Which the various continued reincarnations of Puritanism are unable to forgive, forget, ignore...or defeat.
Yes. The Puritans, in their way, were the religious liberals of the day. And two of the most liberal churches in the USA today are their lineal descendants. One is the Unitarian-Universalists.
The other one has been in the news a bit lately - The United Church of Christ. It's the church of Obama. And Rev. Wright.
The governance (i.e, the congregational polity) of both these denominations is still very similar to the form laid out by the Puritans in the Cambridge Platform.
Mr. Waldman was on Speaking of Faith the Sunday before (western) Easter. The entire, unedited interview is available at that web site.
SOF is probably the most articulate and intelligent serious public discussion of religion available at present. Tippett avoids throwing little bombs and stays away from the tiresome sterotypes and strawman arguments that too often show up on blogs and their comment boxes.
If you'd bother a little study of who or what truly undid and transformed the Puritans in Massachusetts, it didn't exactly happen on its own. Basically, Quakers showed it up to be hypocrisy- theocracy must inevitably censor and suppress its critics, burn books and pamphlets and finally murder them.
I'll point you to the Mary Dyer story (1657-1660) and how the Puritan government illegalized all those rights we see enumerated in the First Amendment to stop her. They had to hang her, finally, for no crime but speaking her mind to those who wanted to hear from her. And that was the deed that was fatal to their moral and worldly authority when it was heard of in the other colonies and by the British Crown. The First Amendment, the scourge of American theocracy, is the monument to that travesty and a similar later Quaker expulsion from iirc Virginia.
Boston was considered a city with a Quaker spirit for quite a few years, from the early 1700s into the 1850s. Benjamin Franklin secularized a good amount of Quaker observations. Much of Emerson's thought is informed by it too- he writes in his letters that what he calls "Selfreliance" is the same thing as the Quaker term Godreliance.
The Founding Fathers mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence, but didn't outright, (http://blogs.pioneerlocal.com/religion). It is interesting how many of the lines were not penned by Jefferson but added during the debate.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.