Founding Fathers were religious liberals

Odd that Dirda doesn't mention Hamilton, who was one of the more influential founding fathers. He was in the midst of setting up something of proto-Christian Coalition when he got himself killed in a duel.

Also, Thomas Jefferson published his own version of the Bible editing out all the supernatural events.

Derek Copold mentions the following above: "Hamilton, who was one of the more influential founding fathers. He was in the midst of setting up something of proto-Christian Coalition when he got himself killed in a duel."
That's interesting. Did Hamilton die by the sword by being contentious? Christians today enjoy living by the sword too. Look at how many Evangelicals unquestioningly supported the Iraq war, even after no WMDs were found. Did Hamilton die by the sword by being contentious?
Puritans were accusing each other of being witches to get land.
Protestants used the Bible to justify slavery.

I think that the Founding Fathers rightly understood that Christianity had become a cancer in Europe. Look at the Inquisition and the wars following the Reformation.
The Founding Fathers established a pluralistic society. Evangelicals don't get that at all.
Thank you Rod for posting this.
I support religious freedom. God knows I've tried out a few religions. But I strongly agree with Ben Franklin:
"The most dangerous hypocrite in a Commonwealth is one who leaves the gospel for the sake of the law. A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under the color of law."
Just look at the GOP wanting to wire tap our phones so we don't question corporate power. Nobody loves Jesus like McCain or Bush.

Let's not overstate the case. Central to the thought of many of the Founders - even the relatively heterodox ones - was the notion of religion as a bulwark against social disorder. (Even Franklin, one of the most irreligious of the founders, was very firm on this point.) See Washington's 1796 farewell address gives, I think, a pretty good summation of the consensus view:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(end quote)

One of the difficulties for us today is that we expect the founders either to be sincere secularists who believed secularism is good top to bottom, or the opposite. There's something moderately Machiavellian in the notion that religion is useful enough to encourage even if it's not well supported by the evidence, and this makes it unattractive for us because Machiavelli is out of fashion, but I think that's the best summation of what the founders (on the whole, with exceptions on the right like Patrick Henry and on the left like Thomas Paine) believed.

There's also a popular misconception that the separation of church and state was to spare the country from becoming a theocracy. While this was a concern, after dealing with the Divine Right of Kings in Europe, they were also concerned about the ways government can pervert religion. This was such a big problem in Europe that Protestants today still misunderstand and harangue Catholics over the issue of indulgences.

Waldman concludes that the Founders had a "variety of views"...
no surprise there...
since these are the interpretations of the unreliable supernatural writings of superstitious ancient men...
confirmed by the explosive growth of "variety" of religion throughout the world since the times of the Founders...
yes...
there's no reason to expect consensus about Myth...
the absolute silence of the Absent God assures that...

faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive God...

We're surprised how? Why? Europe was not the place where Christianity was started. Jesus was not a Swede or Saxon. No matter how hard we try to take credit for the Cross, Europeans have proven over and over again, that the taint of paganism runs long and deep in our DNA. Looking at where the bastard child of the Enlightenment thinkers: "America," stands as a nation, it is not surprising that "the Founders" had such heretical cores. The Elite always drive away a moral compass that will show where they are in terms of Christ Jesus. Their followers show in kind. How typical our founders were in reality. Nothing more special than a citizen in the crowd at Lot's door. Biblical Prophets would have condemned them in part and parcel. In the case of the founders of America, it is shown conclusively that many were following the "different Gospel" that Paul, the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus wrote on without flinching. Jesus did not ignore American in His parables or prophecy. Look to the pile of chaff for the legacy of the wayward, "heterodox," founders. Massachusetts shows the evidence of their spiritual errors. And the dominoes are falling.

We're surprised how? Why? Europe was not the place where Christianity was started. Jesus was not a Swede or Saxon. No matter how hard we try to take credit for the Cross, Europeans have proven over and over again, that the taint of paganism runs long and deep in our DNA

As if the places and peoples where Christianity did originate - the Middle East and Semitic tribes - are so much better? If the "paganism" of the founders lead them to defend the concept of religious freedom and come up with the Bill of Rights, then I'd say we could use a lot more of it.

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.

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.

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.