Citing rise of ‘Christian nationalism,’ Secular Democrats unveil sweeping recommendations for Biden

[NotfooledbyW]

"Nature's God: The Heretical Origins Of The American Republic,"

to be continued

MATTHEW STEWART: Hi, Arun - great to be here.

RATH: So can you tell us - back in 1776, what did nature's God refer to?

STEWART: So nature's God is one - a deity that operates entirely through laws - natural laws - that are explicable. And we have to approach this god through the study of nature and also evidence and experience. So it's a dramatically different kind of deity from that you find in most revealed religions.

RATH: Not the God of Moses who literally gave the law, you know, from on high - revealed in that way.

STEWART: No, that's right. And it also turns out to have a very different genealogy, if I may say so. Nature's God really descends from an ancient Greek tradition that was passed along to the early modern philosophers. And these were quite radical thinkers who were really challenging the ways of thinking of their time and the established religion. Many of them ran into trouble, but it was from them that America's revolutionary philosophers picked up their ideas and, in particular, the idea of nature's God.

RATH: And nature's God is a phrase that specifically comes from a tradition known as deism.

STEWART: That's right. It's called deism. But that was kind of a superficial term. And it was actually kind of a term of abuse in those days because if it was used interchangeably with infidel and atheist.

RATH: An insult hurled at people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. But weren't a lot of the deists regular churchgoers?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Nature's God: The Heretical Origins Of The American Republic,"

RATH: An insult hurled at people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. But weren't a lot of the deists regular churchgoers?

STEWART: Yes, they did go to church. Bear in mind that religion at the time was an incredibly complex thing, and there were people of all different stripes of Christianity. And there were a fair number of quite liberal churches. In fact, Unitarianism really originates in this period. And in addition to that, the society was such that you pretty much had to go to church in order to participate in it.

So, you know, George Washington participated as a vestryman in his local congregation, but that didn't really imply any particular kind of religious belief. This was necessary in order to participate in the society. But I think by virtue of that Christianity being so widespread, in the way, it was richer and more open, perhaps, then it would later become.

RATH: You know, Jefferson, for all of his radicalism, he still admired the moral code of Jesus. So is there any harm in thinking of nature's God as the Christian God?

STEWART: There's no harm at all because you can think of these things in any way you like. And, certainly, Jefferson, like all of America's founders, appreciated the tremendous value and richness of the Christian tradition and of other religious traditions. The important point, though, is that he understood that value to lie in the morality, and this morality was ultimately based on reason.

RATH: I think for me the biggest revelation in the book was about the founding father I knew the least about - Ethan Allen, who was just way more revolutionary and interesting than I had any idea from high school civics.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Nature's God: The Heretical Origins Of The American Republic,"

RATH: I think for me the biggest revelation in the book was about the founding father I knew the least about - Ethan Allen, who was just way more revolutionary and interesting than I had any idea from high school civics.

STEWART: Ethan Allen was convinced that every planet out there has its own intelligent extraterrestrials. And this, as you can imagine, is a radical, inspiring, but very unsettling, idea.

RATH: Wild enough that they would have the idea that there could be extraterrestrial civilizations, but for them, that led to the conclusion, well, how can there be just, you know, one Jesus if - just on this one planet? That kind of pulls things apart.

STEWART: Yes, well, that's why it's a very unsettling thought because it's a way of recognizing that all of our past, all of our traditions - as noble and interesting as they are - are very limited. We're just one rock surrounded by this immense universe. So it comes with it a kind of humility, but also a kind of boldness that says, well, we can make the world anew. I mean, we don't have to stick with our traditions. Let's take what's good in them and move on and try something new. Maybe we can emulate the space aliens.

And I should point out, by the way, that for them, the space aliens were these nice people. They were kind of like us but maybe a little bit better, actually. They weren't the sort of paranoid, you know, world-destroying people that we think of now.

RATH: It was "E.T.," not "Independence Day."

STEWART: That's right, exactly.

RATH: Matthew Stewart is the author of "Nature's God: The Heretical Origins Of The American Republic." Matthew, very interesting. Thank you.

STEWART: Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The very first chapter in Thomas Paine’s anti-clerical “Age of Reason” [Book 1 — 1794] is entitled “The Author’s Profession of Faith.” Probably its most famous phrase is where he writes “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.”

“The Age of Reason” contains many arguments for Deism, written in popular language. It provoked a short-lived rebirth of interest in Deism, but met mostly with fierce opposition in the U.S. and in Europe, and especially in England. The rising conservative, religious and national patriotic reactions to the French Revolution/Napoleanic Wars made it impossible for “proper society” to pay attention or care about the special features of “Nature’s God,” and many Churches launched effective and all-consuming attacks on radical Enlightenment thinking, which the “Age of Reason” embodied. Even the young Abraham Lincoln was reportedly obliged to burn a favorable monograph he had written about Paine’s arguments in “The Age of Reason.”

Deism disappeared, and Paine was savaged as an atheist, while the Catholic Church turned its back on the Enlightenment and modernism entirely. Rarely has Deism’s internal contradictions and naïveté been analyzed properly. Can’t do that here. Not qualified either. But Peter Gay wrote an influential two-volume history of the Age of Enlightenment whose first volume was subtitled "The Rise of Modern Paganism.” It won the National Book Award in 1967.

I think Paine’s moral faith and “secular millennialism” was a bit naive. Paganism’s “many gods” and pantheistic religions may better serve us in this chaotic modern world than what Paine referred to as “true theology,” than his “single God, and no more” — even when “God” is just considered a god of nature revealed by reason. In any case, I don’t mind considering myself a modern Deist.

Just a little food for thought.

 

[lennypartiv]

well people don't want homosexuality, transgender and so on forced down their throats either.

Liberals look back at the fifties and see Hell on earth. Everybody else looks back at the fifties and sees a great America, almost a utopia.

 

[struth]

"Nature's God: The Heretical Origins Of The American Republic,"

2) then you...and it’s obvious have a narrow view of things

no, This reply comes from a mind so narrow it lets in only one concept of God:

Paine believed in God

That’s NATURE’s God .. Please recall my statement to which you posted your erroneous and narrow-minded reply:

IF you did not believe in a God who will punish you with eternal damnation for wrongdoing

The Deists and Unitarian and Freemason concept of God was not the vengeful God of Judeo-Christian belief of Catholics such as yourself and of John Locke:

I’m saying your reasoning for believing America was founded on Judeo Christian values is weak when its based on Locke being a Christian

And already explained the difference between fearing and believing in Yahweh vs the Deist belief in NATURE’s GOD that was cited in the Declaration of Independence

Paine was much more significant to the founding of America than Locke was and he was Deist. He was called an atheist as was JEFFERSON at the time.

What we know of Locke I believe he would have sided with his fellow Bible Thumping Evangelical Protestants in consideration of - - Jefferson and Paine’s radical belief in Nature’s God and their rejection of the concept of original sin - to be atheistic because punishment by the Biblical God for sin as I understand it was very important to Locke.

A wise man once said:

America was founded by much more than Judeo Christian values. A lot more.

So I will leave you with something to open your mind. The first few paragraphs from an interview on NPR with the author of “ "Nature's God: The Heretical Origins Of The American Republic,"

Founders Claimed A Subversive Right To 'Nature's God' July 13, 20149:51 AM ET ARUN RATH, HOST:​

​

There is a peculiar phrase up high in the Declaration of Independence that asserts the right of the American people to assume, quote, "the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them." What exactly is nature's God?​

​

The founding fathers were all at least nominally Christian. And a lot of modern historians have run with the idea that the phrase nature's God is an indication that the founders were basing the country on Christian morality. But historian Matthew Stewart says that's totally wrong.​

​

In his new book, "Nature's God: The Heretical Origins Of The American Republic," he argues that the founders' concept of God was as revolutionary as their ideas about self determination and democracy. Matthew Stewart joins us to explain. Hi, Matthew.​

to be continued ..

hahah...Paine said there was only one God

"Nature's God" --- yeah Paine and I believe in the one God that created Nature. It's ironic that you now are acknowleding Paine believes in God...a little while ago you were claiming he was an Atheist

I am Catholic, was raised Catholic, and I don't believe in a vengeful God...I know many Protestants that don't believe in a vengeful God either.....I believe God is a loving God. It seems you have a narrative view of what God is...not me...and seem to be stretching things and looking for an argument that isn't there.....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In any case, I don’t mind considering myself a modern Deist.

Same here. Your knowledge on the subject takes me back to a good place about a half a century ago.

I was raised to be a Lutheran. Didn’t much comply during my youth. It was reading the Age of Reason that liberated my mind from the yoke of Judeo-Christianity organized religion.. It was Paine’s chapters on inconsistencies, fallacies and supernatural impossibilities that are in the Bible.

I had nothing at my start in life because I lived on my own from fifteen on. I worked my way through high school earning the minimum credits to graduate during the peak of the Vietnam War. My serious questioning of religion came from the news coverage of a war waged by my government in a land of 80 percent Buddhists to defend Catholic Presidents that were supposedly “elected” by the people of South Vietnam.

I was a new father when I read the Age of Reason - hearing about it from a visiting lecturer, an author and professor at a Unitarian Church - which was the only church I knew at the time that openly opposed the War in Vietnam.

I was working in construction supporting a family when I attended my first real connection to the academic and scholarly world. But when I read the Age of Reason it was at that time I feel my mind was set free from organized religion. And some 50 years later my life and family life has been fantastic I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I never left construction but ended up project managing multi million dollar water and waste water treatment plants. Just retired. Semi-

My mother complained to her dying day that I never got baptized. We always knew deep down Thanksgiving etc. that she was really way over it. And five of my brothers and sisters gave up religion as well and are doing well in life. And all her kids and grandkids and great grandkids And great great grandkids. That is what life is all about. Not what brand of religion you choose.

ThanKs


I love this

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world […]
Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I am Catholic, was raised Catholic, and I don't believe in a vengeful God...

Is this Catholic doctrine?

​

The Catechism of the Catholic Church which, when published in 1992, Pope John Paul II declared to be "a sure norm for teaching the faith", defines hell as a freely chosen consequence of refusing to love God: We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him.​

​

A loving God would not punish his 21st Century AD humans for not loving a mysterious manifestation of himself 21 centuries long gone.


Reason tells me that’s a vengeful God.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Nature's God" --- yeah Paine and I believe in the one God that created Nature.

Some minds will not open.

The difference between John Locke’s and Thomas Paine‘s concept of god has already been explained. But here it is again.

RATH: So can you tell us - back in 1776, what did nature's God refer to?​

STEWART: So nature's God is one - a deity that operates entirely through laws - natural laws - that are explicable. And we have to approach this god through the study of nature and also evidence and experience. So it's a dramatically different kind of deity from that you find in most revealed religions.​

RATH: Not the God of Moses who literally gave the law, you know, from on high - revealed in that way.​

As I explained, Thomas Paine‘s God was based on his Deism and would have been considered atheistic because DeIsts did not worship nor were required to love their concept of God.

Your Catholic God, the same as Lockes protestant God requires his subjects to love him. If he is not loved then they must be punished.

 

[struth]

"Nature's God" --- yeah Paine and I believe in the one God that created Nature.

Some minds will not open.

The difference between John Locke’s and Thomas Paine‘s concept of god has already been explained. But here it is again.

RATH: So can you tell us - back in 1776, what did nature's God refer to?​

STEWART: So nature's God is one - a deity that operates entirely through laws - natural laws - that are explicable. And we have to approach this god through the study of nature and also evidence and experience. So it's a dramatically different kind of deity from that you find in most revealed religions.​

RATH: Not the God of Moses who literally gave the law, you know, from on high - revealed in that way.​

As I explained, Thomas Paine‘s God was based on his Deism and would have been considered atheistic because DeIsts did not worship nor were required to love their concept of God.

Your Catholic God, the same as Lockes protestant God requires his subjects to love him. If he is not loved then they must be punished.

Natural law, is a key part of the Dec of Independence...Life, Liberty and well Locke said property....so yes...Paine was greatly influrenced by Locke and his values.

atheism and demism are two different things

and no...while I can't speak for Locke, my God will not punish me, or you, or Paine, or anyone if they don't love him,

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

"

WASHINGTON (RNS) — A Democratic group dedicated to representing secular values unveiled a slate of recommendations for President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration on Monday (Nov. 30), outlining a sweeping agenda designed to roll back many of President Trump’s actions involving religion and to “restore a vision of constitutional secularism.”

The 28-page document, crafted by the Secular Democrats of America PAC, is being presented to the incoming administration by Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman — both co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.

The SDA’s agenda offers a wide range of policy recommendations to push back against the so-called “Christian nationalist movement,” which the the group describes as an “extraordinarily well-funded and well-organized” phenomenon whose “extreme and sectarian agenda (was) on constant display under the Trump-Pence administration.”

Citing rise of 'Christian nationalism,' Secular Democrats unveil sweeping recommendations for Biden

WASHINGTON (RNS) — Authors suggested Biden use ‘E Pluribus Unum’ — Latin for ‘out of many, one’ — instead of ‘In God We Trust’ and repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

religionnews.com

Work with Congress to incentivize states to increase their vaccination rates by repealing all nonmedical exemptions to mandatory vaccination for children in schools and day care centers. States like California and New York have taken such actions, but only after experiencing severe outbreaks of measles and whooping cough. Parents and children have the right to a school environment free of vaccine preventable diseases. The most vulnerable among us who are medically ineligible for vaccination depend on herd immunity to protect them.

https://seculardems.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SecularDemocratsofAmerica_Blueprint_BidenHarrisTransition_11-30-20_FINAL.pdf

Move along, nothing see here....well except for a direct attack on Religious Liberties that is.

I keep telling the Conservative Right........

Cause it's worked out so splendidly so far !!!

 

[struth]

I am Catholic, was raised Catholic, and I don't believe in a vengeful God...

Is this Catholic doctrine?

​

The Catechism of the Catholic Church which, when published in 1992, Pope John Paul II declared to be "a sure norm for teaching the faith", defines hell as a freely chosen consequence of refusing to love God: We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him.​

​

A loving God would not punish his 21st Century AD humans for not loving a mysterious manifestation of himself 21 centuries long gone.


Reason tells me that’s a vengeful God.

Obviously, if you decided to be Catholic, you should love God. But God doesn't go around striking down Jews, Muslims, Buddist, Protestants etc for not being Catholic, because he isn't vengeful.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Obviously, if you decided to be Catholic, you should love God. But God doesn't go around striking down Jews, Muslims, Buddist, Protestants etc for not being Catholic, because he isn't vengeful.

I said nothing about GOD striking down anyone. It’s that Paine’s NATURE’s GOD is impersonal. your loving God is personal. There’s a difference. LOCKE’s philosophy and his Christian belief requires a personal God. One that that punishes those that don’t commit to a personal relationship WITH God. I just think it is fair to say that would have considered Thomas Paine to be an atheist because he believed in an impersonal God that does not punish sinners.

If you do not want to address that point I do understand.

America is much less founded on Judeo-Christian principles When that point is understood by Christians specifically.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Natural law, is a key part of the Dec of Independence.

The discussion was about NATURE’s GOD. Is there a reason you are avoiding the subject.

Locke was closed minded about the concept of GOD. He would tolerate only worshippers of the GOD who allegedly inspired humans to author the HOLY BIBLE.

Paine considered the BIBLE basically to be hogwash. A con on the masses and one of the perps was the Roman catholic church.

So do you really believe that had John Locke kept his philosophy and witnessed the American revolution that he would have considered Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and many others to be worthy of living in what he considered an ideal civil society?

I say John Locke would have considered most of the American revolutionaries and founders to be atheists unworthy of his commonwealth. And again that’s because they believed in an impersonal guard not the God of Judeo Christian organized religion.

 

[struth]

Obviously, if you decided to be Catholic, you should love God. But God doesn't go around striking down Jews, Muslims, Buddist, Protestants etc for not being Catholic, because he isn't vengeful.

I said nothing about GOD striking down anyone. It’s that Paine’s NATURE’s GOD is impersonal. your loving God is personal. There’s a difference. LOCKE’s philosophy and his Christian belief requires a personal God. One that that punishes those that don’t commit to a personal relationship WITH God. I just think it is fair to say that would have considered Thomas Paine to be an atheist because he believed in an impersonal God that does not punish sinners.

If you do not want to address that point I do understand.

America is much less founded on Judeo-Christian principles When that point is understood by Christians specifically.

you said vengeful...

How do you know how personal Paine was to God? He spoke a lot about God. Seems to have had a relationship to the God as he understood it.

 

[struth]

Natural law, is a key part of the Dec of Independence.

The discussion was about NATURE’s GOD. Is there a reason you are avoiding the subject.

Locke was closed minded about the concept of GOD. He would tolerate only worshippers of the GOD who allegedly inspired humans to author the HOLY BIBLE.

Paine considered the BIBLE basically to be hogwash. A con on the masses and one of the perps was the Roman catholic church.

So do you really believe that had John Locke kept his philosophy and witnessed the American revolution that he would have considered Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and many others to be worthy of living in what he considered an ideal civil society?

I say John Locke would have considered most of the American revolutionaries and founders to be atheists unworthy of his commonwealth. And again that’s because they believed in an impersonal guard not the God of Judeo Christian organized religion.

he took a lot from the bible and wrote about it a good bit

i am not sure what subject i am avoiding. There is only one God in my view, same with Paine. Individuals have their own relations with that God

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There is only one God in my view,

is your GOD three distinct Persons to this one God and that these three Persons form a unity?

have you heard of this:

This belief is called the doctrine of the Trinity: God the Father - the creator and sustainer of all things. God the Son - the incarnation of God as a human being, Jesus Christ, on Earth.

Have you ever heard of this?

New International Version Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.​

Your belief in God goes through Jesus Christ, is that correct?

Thomas Paine’s belief in God absolutely, vehemently, loudly rejects Jesus Christ as his path to God. Our first four presidents all rejected the Catholic doctrine of the holy Trinity.

So how does Thomas Paine get to God and his love by rejecting your Catholic doctrine derived from the Holy Bible and based on what Jesus said in John 14:6?

Do you see that Catholics put dibs on access to the one true God?

So if John Locke was not tolerant of Catholics what makes you think he would be tolerant of Deists?

Take your time.

 

[struth]

There is only one God in my view,

is your GOD three distinct Persons to this one God and that these three Persons form a unity?

have you heard of this:

This belief is called the doctrine of the Trinity: God the Father - the creator and sustainer of all things. God the Son - the incarnation of God as a human being, Jesus Christ, on Earth.

Have you ever heard of this?

​

New International Version Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.​

Your belief in God goes through Jesus Christ, is that correct?

Thomas Paine’s belief in God absolutely, vehemently, loudly rejects Jesus Christ as his path to God. Our first four presidents all rejected the Catholic doctrine of the holy Trinity.

So how does Thomas Paine get to God and his love by rejecting your Catholic doctrine derived from the Holy Bible and based on what Jesus said in John 14:6?

Do you see that Catholics put dibs on access to the one true God?

So if John Locke was not tolerant of Catholics what makes you think he would be tolerant of Deists?

Take your time.

i have heard of it but it’s not three distinct people.

You really don’t have a clue what you are talking about in that regard

because God is love. That’s how Paine gets there.

he lived a Godly life and did good work, my God is not vengeful..maybe the God of your fantasy is

 

[NotfooledbyW]

because God is love. That’s how Paine gets there.

What’s all the hullabaloo about Jesus Christ being a savior in the Catholic Church then?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

How do you know how personal Paine was to God? He spoke a lot about God. Seems to have had a relationship to the God as he understood it.

No, Paine cannot have a personal relationship with an impersonal NATURE’s GOD no more than an atheists can with no GOD.

because God is love. That’s how Paine gets there. he lived a Godly life and did good work,

Catholicism had nothing to do with the founding of America and Deism did, but for my personal edification on Catholic Doctrine can you show me anything in laymen’s language from a Catholic source that a man like Thomas Paine who did not believe in a personal GOD, who had no way to follow the revealed WILL of GOD (in order to lead a godly life or to do good works) could be saved by JESUS CHRIST the same as a devout Catholic and not be cast into the lake of fire abd burn in hell for all eternity.

And just for your edification there is no way that Thomas Paine was saved by JESUS according to JOHN Locke’s religious views.

John Locke believed that Christianity consists of merely one essential article of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world. He believed that anyone who confesses a belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah is a Christian, "[f]or that this is the sole doctrine pressed and required to be believed in the whole tenor of Our Savior's and his apostles [sic] preaching.,

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1746&context=sulr

29 Locke boiled Christianity down to two means by which persons could be saved: faith and repentance.3 ° Alluding to the New Testament,3' Locke explained:

Though the devils believed.., yet they could not be saved by the covenant of grace; because they performed not the other condition required in it, altogether as necessary to be performed as this of believing: and that is repentance. Repentance is as absolute a condition of the covenant of grace as faith; and as necessary to be performed as that.32

Locke understood the "covenant of grace" to be that by which God gave people agency and reason, and in exchange also gave them commandments for how they should act.33 By agreeing to submit one's will to God's and keep the commandments, a man might sacrifice his agency in return for grace:

The law of works makes no allowance for failing on any occasion. Those that obey are righteous; those that in any part dis- obey, are unrighteous, and must not expect life, the reward of righteousness. But by the law of faith, faith is allowed to supply the defect of full obedience; and so the believers are admitted to ...immortality, as if they were righteous. 34