Reading Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism I am struck again by the peculiarity of the American nation, and its fundamental radicalism. I have already stated that this is implicitly an Anglo-Protestant nation. As a point of fact Protestant churches were established and supported in most American states at the Founding, with Massachusetts not disestablishing until the 1830s. The emergence of the Roman Catholic educational system was in large part a reaction to the Protestant content which was taken for granted in the public school system. The arrival of waves of Catholic German and Irish immigrants in the 1840s prompted the rise of the “Know Nothing” movement and a deep suspicion of “Romanism.” In 1830 the United States was a deeply Protestant nation within the dissenting tradition.
And yet until the election of Andrew Jackson it is likely that the United States had not had a head of state who could be termed an orthodox Christian, that is, accepting the axioms of Trinitarian Christianity. True, even Thomas Jefferson, whose deism ran deep, would likely have identified as a Protestant Christian, but that was more due to the cultural valence than affinity with the belief content of the majority of the Protestant Christians of the American nation (Jefferson personally assumed that the future of American Protestantism lay with a rationalist Unitarianism, his own personal orientation). And yet Jackson, like his political predecessor Jefferson, refused to proclaim a “day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer” because of qualms with the mixing of church and state.
This sort of behavior was bizarre at the least, for almost all of human history polities drew upon the favor of the supernatural, the gods and fates. The lack of mention of religion in the Constitution except in a negation, the clause banning religious tests, was blasphemous to many, and even perplexing to more. A modicum of religious toleration might have existed in the Netherlands or England from the national confession, but before the United States minority sects had only existed at the sufferance and indulgence of the majority in every society. Polities such as that of ancient pagan Rome which were pluralist patronized a multiplicity of gods, the rise of Christianity was simply a consolidation of the status quo. Even the republic of old which the American Founders looked upon as an exemplar, that of Rome, was laden with traditions of augurs and priests.
In many ways the American nation was an extension of a particular cultural tradition, that of dissenting British Protestants. The formation of the republic could perhaps be conceived of as an echo of the failed republic of Oliver Cromwell. But in other ways it was radical, its massive size was seen to mitigate the likelihood of its long term success, as republics were assumed not to scale. And its lack of formal relationship to religion was a strange and novel innovation born out of the abstractions and fashions of the Enlightenment, perhaps more a matter of historical contingency than inevitability. If the rebellion against the British monarchy had occurred during the First or Second Great Awakenings it may be that the Christian religion would have found a place within the structure of the American government.*
* This was the position of Patrick Henry, that is, state support and sanction for a range of Christian sects as opposed to patronage of one above all.
** Also, the relative lack of religious orthodoxy on the part of the elite is likely not the total story. Frederick the Great was a religious skeptic, but that seemed to have little effect on the relationship between Protestantism ad the Russian state. Similarly, the Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil, was personally an agnostic. This did not effect the role of the Roman Catholic religion within the Brazilian Empire.
*** Many customary aspects of public piety associated with the American government are innovations. “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance, “In God We Trust” on the coinage, and the lack of Sunday mail delivery for example.
As the very devout Samuel Adams [“a Calvinist’s Calvinist”] writes in
The Rights of the Colonists
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting.
November 20, 1772
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm
…the Founding era had developed a theology:
“…it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society.”
Which excludes papists, of course. 😉
One might credit this tolerance to wisdom and experience following the religious persecutions in Mother Britain, but the Enlightenment need not be given the credit for something that was clearly developing within American Christian thought.
but the Enlightenment need not be given the credit for something that was clearly developing within American Christian thought.
yes, but as you say, the latitudinarianism excluded catholics. but a few such as jefferson, washington, etc. included catholics, and even jews.
The reservations about Catholics were based on the belief that they held allegiance to a foreign prince [the pope]. Purely a political objection, and since the Catholics were charged in the plot to blow up Parliament [the Gunpowder Plot], not completely unjustified.
The Enlightenment is commonly presented as a secular either/or with Christian thought. I don’t believe the facts back that up, is all.
“*** Many customary aspects of public piety associated with the American government are innovations. “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance, “In God We Trust” on the coinage, and the lack of Sunday mail delivery for example.”
Another relatively modern innovation is postage stamps with a Chrismas theme. I’ve read that for years the Post Office (now the Postal Service) refused to issue such stamps for use on Xmas cards on the grounds that it would be a violation of the separation of church and state. So, as recently as 50 years ago, people mailed their Xmas cards with stamps depicting Abraham Lincoln, the flag etc.
In 1962 the first Xmas stamp was issued. It depicted a wreath and 2 candles. The next year the stamp for Xmas showed the Xmas tree on the National Mall. In 1964 there were 4 different depicting plants associated with the holiday season- holly, mistletoe, poinsetta and spirg of conifer. (Perhaps someone can ellighten me as to the Xmas significance of the last one.) All these are basically symbols of secular Xmas. In 1965 came a depiction of a 19th Century weathervane depicting an angel. And in 1966 the wall was totally breached with a 15th Century Madonna and Child. Another M & C in 1967 and an Annuciation in 1968. In 1969 a reversion to a secular theme with a Currier and Ives type scene. Then in 1970 both a religious stamp (Holy Family) and 4 different secular stamps picturing antique toys. I stopped checking year by year after that, but we now have both a religious stamp and one or more seculars for Xmas. Some years ago (1990s?)when there was a plan to drop the religious stamp for a year protests forced its return. I’m sure lots of people believe that Xmas postage stamps have “always” been issued. And there have been Hannukah, Eid and Kwanzaa(arguably a secular celebration of African culture) stamps in recent years.
Your mention of FREETHINKERS, which I read a few years ago, reminds me of something off topic, but too good to ignore. Jacoby mentions that before the hand over heart civilian flag salute was introduced in 1942 the unofficial civilian flag salute was a Roman salute (or, if you prefer, a Fascist or Nazi salute). I was amazed to read this. On the page indicated below you can see some 1920s Girl Scouts giving this salute. This is the only picture of it I have ever seen. The page is very long, the photo is about half way down.
http://www.fanac.org/fanzines/IGOTS/IGOTS26.HTM
The Enlightenment is commonly presented as a secular either/or with Christian thought. I don’t believe the facts back that up, is all.
well, i can see how you were saying that, but that wasn’t my intent. it’s a short blog post, so there’s no way i was going to exposit an accurate model of my own perception of the time….
Take your time; I’ll stop back now & then. I see a lot more Aquinas [via natural law] than Hume in the American Founding. But mebbe I’m wrong. If so, you seem just the fellow to show me. Cheers.