Palin signs a bill

Palin signs a bill

As governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin issued a religious declaration to America’s “Christian heritage” that includes quotes from Founding Fathers who were not Christian and from those who argued strongly against the issuing of such declarations under any circumstances. Last year she declared Oct. 21-27 to be Christian Heritage Week in the state, during which residents were encouraged to celebrate America’s “Christian heritage.” She issued a declaration that purported to document that heritage with several quotes from various Founding Fathers; unfortunately, many of those quotes were inaccurate or out of context or presented a skewed picture of that founder’s genuine beliefs. The declaration began:

WHEREAS, the celebration of Christian Heritage Week, October 21-27, 2007, reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage. Many truly great men and women of America, giants in the structuring of American history, were Christians of caliber and integrity who did not hesitate to express their faith. Some of their legacies are evidenced as follows:

And then the quotes begin. The first quote is from Ben Franklin, when he was suggesting that the quarreling delegates stop and have a prayer (his suggestion was rejected, by the way, and the meeting was adjourned without the prayer). Here’s what Palin quotes him as saying:

WHEREAS, Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention stated, “It is impossible to build an empire without our Father’s aid. I believe the sacred writings which say that, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it (Psalm 127:1).”

Here’s what Franklin actually said, as recorded in the notes of James Madison:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel.

It’s pretty close to the quote she has, but still inaccurate. And yes, Franklin did believe in a provident God that answered prayer. But he also rejected most of the elements of orthodox Christianity, including the divinity of Jesus. Franklin, along with most of the other leading Founding Fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison), was best described by the Christian historian Gregg Frazer as a theistic rationalist rather than a Christian.

The second quote is from George Washington, and this one is much more severely altered from the original. Her declaration reads:

WHEREAS, George Washington enunciated, “animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and conducting ourselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, we may enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”

The quote, such as it is, comes from a letter Washington wrote to a group of Roman Catholics. But Palin’s declaration makes it sound as though Washington was speaking of himself when he was actually speaking to the recipients of his letter. Here’s the actual quote:

And may the members of your society [the Roman Catholics] in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.

The third quote is from Thomas Jefferson:

WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”

This is an inaccurate quotation, but I won’t hold that against Palin because the same quotation appears on the Jefferson Memorial (the actual quotation is longer, but expresses the same basic idea). But remember that she presents these quotes as evidence of “Christians of caliber and integrity” who led our government, and the fact is that Jefferson was not a Christian by any criteria that Palin would likely recognize.

Jefferson, like the others cited above, was a theistic rationalist. He believed strongly that the ethical system that Jesus came up with was the finest he had encountered, but he rejected every other element of Christianity – the resurrection, the virgin birth, original sin and atonement, the divinity of Jesus (he not only believed Jesus was a mere human, he argued that Jesus had never claimed to be divine at all, that this was one of the many corruptions foisted on us by his followers). He also rejected the Old Testament conception of God as “cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust.”

Imagine Jefferson walking into Palin’s Assembly of God church and explaining those beliefs to them. Would they welcome him as a Christian? Almost certainly not. Yet here she lists him as a Christian. It must be remembered that believing in God does not necessarily mean believing in the Christian God, and Jefferson clearly did not.

The next quotation is from James Madison:

WHEREAS, James Madison, father of the United States Constitution advocated “the diffusion of the light of Christianity in our nation” in his Memorial and Remonstrance.

The Memorial and Remonstrance was a document that Madison wrote in opposition to a bill put forth by Patrick Henry in the Virginia Assembly that would have taxed the people of that state for the support of Christian churches. Madison, who advocated the strictest separation of church and state of all the Founding Fathers, thought this bill was a violation of the rights of conscience. His arguments won the day; the bill was defeated — and in its place he pushed through the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, a bill originally written by Jefferson that became a model for the First Amendment a few years later. But here is the actual quote:

12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.

Madison was speaking predominately to Christians and he was appealing to their own beliefs, arguing that separation of church and state was more conducive to the spread of Christianity than an established church. He was right, of course, and today America is far more pervasively Christian than other nations like England, which still technically has an established church. If you want Christianity to spread widely, he was saying to them, you should support separation rather than religious establishments.

But there is one other matter that is worth mentioning: Two of the men she quotes were staunchly opposed to issuing the very kind of declarations she has issued here. Thomas Jefferson famously refused to issue such declarations as his predecessors, Washington and Adams, had done. A minister named Samuel Miller wrote to Jefferson while he was in office, urging him to issue such proclamations. His reply is instructive:

Sir, — I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it’s exercises, it’s discipline, or it’s doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

Madison agreed with Jefferson, though he did bow to enormous political pressure surrounding the War of 1812 and issued a couple of vaguely worded proclamations as Congress demanded. He did so very reluctantly and regretted it greatly. In his Detached Memoranda, he wrote of such proclamations:

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho’ recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea.

Most of the Founding Fathers were undoubtedly Christians, some more orthodox than others. But the leading lights among the founders, the first four presidents and Ben Franklin (as well as Alexander Hamilton through most of his life and Thomas Paine his entire life), would certainly not be considered Christians today by Palin if she knew their real views — which I doubt she does. Decades of historical revisionism by the likes of David Barton have unfortunately oversimplified the religious views of these men and painted a distorted picture, one that is only made worse by Palin’s inaccurate declaration.