Comments | fpb: America's religion

fpb

America's religion - essay 1

Dec 19, 2009 10:14

The heart of the conflict between conservatives and liberals in America is religious. Although some conservatives are not Christian and many liberals retain for various reasons a claim to Christian identity, nonetheless the claim that sets them at each other's throat is simple - simple and tremendous, because it implies a claim on the whole nation ( Read more... )

american politics, american religion

Comments 38

Re-Baptism eliskimo December 19 2009, 14:30:52 UTC

after having been baptized in the Episcopal church as a baby - he apparently allowed himself to be rebaptized by a group of Baptists in the seventeen-eighties certainly does not show much internal respect for Christianity, which finds re-baptism a horror.

FPB, I'm afraid I find this statement to be as much of a distortion as you are accusing political Liberals and Conservatives of. To make a blanket statement which implies that ALL Christians do (and have always) find "re-baptism a horror" simply ignores the entirety of the anabaptist movement, the theology of credobaptism, much of the history of the Reformation, and in this specific case, the revivalism of the Second Great Awakening (which unlike its parent, the Great Awakening in the UK, was a uniquely American experince). That Washington was re-baptized by a group of Baptists is completely in-line with both the revivalism of the time (in which the Baptists played a leading role) and the credobaptist principles of that particular denomination.

Re: Re-Baptism eliskimo December 19 2009, 14:37:17 UTC

As a side note, I first heard a comic song as a teenager which included a reference to this practice. "The Mississipppi Squirrel Revival" by Ray Stevens says in the last stanza:

"Well, seven deacons and the pastor got saved,
And forty-seven thousand dollars got raised,
And fifty volunteered for missions in the Congo on the spot.
And even without an Invitation,
There were at least 500 re-dedications
And we ALL got re-baptized whether we needed it or not."

While the church in question in this song is never named, there is certain assumption that they are probably Southern Baptists.

Re: Re-Baptism fpb December 19 2009, 15:29:42 UTC

Just possibly.

Re: Re-Baptism deansteinlage December 20 2009, 23:41:06 UTC

I believe it was "The First Self-Righteous Church". Funny song.

Thread 15

Nice Summary eliskimo December 19 2009, 14:40:52 UTC

Can I quote your fourth paragraph?

Re: Nice Summary eliskimo December 19 2009, 14:42:26 UTC

BTW - I haven't finished reading this entire essay yet, but I'm finding it intriguing. Unfortunately, my five-month old needs me right now, so I'm going to have to come back to it later.

Re: Nice Summary fpb December 19 2009, 15:36:23 UTC

I am not quite so vain as to imagine that my deathless prose takes precedence over a baby. Give him (her?) a caress from me.

Re: Nice Summary eliskimo December 19 2009, 16:29:47 UTC

Him. Alexander James.
Thanks!

Thread 5

capnflynn December 19 2009, 16:38:52 UTC

I'm pretty new to both conservatism and Catholicism, but it seems incredible to me that anyone could cherish the illusion that the founding fathers were devoutly religious people. Do people not know history any more?! (A rhetorical question: I know they don't. It's just sad, is all.)

fpb December 19 2009, 16:52:45 UTC

It's more like, since they obviously weren't atheists, since they committed their cause to Divine Providence and saw religion as a guarantee of republican virtue, therefore they must be Christian. And to be fair, some of them were; the rank and file of Washington's army surely was; but the intellectual leadership, beginning with Tom Paine, was Deist.

inverarity December 19 2009, 16:51:48 UTC

many liberals retain for various reasons a claim to Christian identity

That seems very carefully worded so as to imply that no liberals are actually Christians, even if they claim to be. Was that your intent?

Liberals say: America was founded as, and remains, a secular country, whose organization has no organic connection with any kind of religion, and certainly not with Christianity.I don't really know too many liberals who'd go that far. Of course anyone who knows history knows that religion, and specifically Christianity, was very much a part of the nation's identity from the beginning ( ... )

fpb December 19 2009, 16:55:48 UTC

Well, for a start, if they did, they would be wrong. Counting Unitarians, as I do, not to be Christian, it is certainly the case that the Christian proportion of the American population is as large now as it was in 1783, possibly larger; and certainly closer to the commanding heights of politics, business and even culture than it was at a time when everyone who was anyone was Deist, Unitarian and/or Freemason. But I shall deal with this in my next essay or two.

fpb December 19 2009, 17:00:19 UTC

That seems very carefully worded so as to imply that no liberals are actually Christians, even if they claim to be. Was that your intent?

Yes and no. You have to bear in mind that I regard the whole phenomenon of Christianity from the viewpoint of Rome. A Baptist, to me, is certainly a Christian, but I would have some serious issues with serious and central features of his/her faith. By the same token, anyone who subscribes to the sort of attitudes represented by President Obama - for whom, as you may have observed, I have rather more respect than most of his opponents - may sincerely believe in the Trinity, in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, and in personal salvation and eternal life, but I would still have huge issues with many important features of their lives.

fellmama December 19 2009, 18:36:22 UTC

You know, I've had this argument with several atheist friends IRL. They seem to have trouble grasping that my definitions of who is a "Christian" and who is a "person I agree with" don't have a whole lot in common.

Well done on the analysis, by the way.

Thread 7

cheyinka December 19 2009, 21:32:29 UTC

I am looking forward eagerly to "the next essay in this series", because this was really good.

Among other things I didn't realize that religious tolerance was as prominent in Europe at the time; despite knowing that it isn't the case, it's hard to shake being taught every Thanksgiving that the first colonists came here for "religious freedom". I'm pretty sure that's where a lot of the misconception that the Founders were devoutly Christian and envisioned a nation composed of devout Christians: if the colonists and their descendants were here because "their birthplaces wouldn't let them worship as they liked", religion must be, if not the central focus of their lives, certainly very important.

fpb December 19 2009, 23:27:09 UTC

The first settlers certainly weren't looking for anyone else's freedom of religion but their own. Religious tyranny was as bad in early New England as in the various nations of old Europe, and declined at roughly the same pace. In Naples, the last heretic was burned in the first decade of the eighteenth century - I don't remember the exact year - and that just about gives you the idea of when religious brutality on both sides ceased to be dominant. Toleration as a principle, however, did not exist anywhere in Europe before 1783; it was more a matter of a series of ad hoc adaptations to existing realities. A king could conquer a land settled by people of a different religion and had to show his new subjects that he would not be an ogre to them; so it was when Orthodox Russia conquered Catholic Poland and Lithuania and Lutheran Latvia, Estonia and Finland. A king inherited a different crown with a separate religion; so it was when James VI of Presbyterian Scotland became James I of Anglican England. People just had to get used to ( ... )