The Founding Myth Read online

  Religions, particularly established religions or religions to which a majority of the population ascribe, will nearly always oppose revolution because revolution upsets the status quo in which they are powerful. This also means that religions will usually fight progress, as can be seen across history, from flat-earthers to geocentrists to young earth creationists; from the index of prohibited books to book burnings to declaring one—and only one—book the book of truth; from outlawing pain relief during childbirth to banning contraception to preventing women from taking control of procreation; from exorcisms to opposing vaccines and stem cell research; from validating slavery to enslaving women in the home to prohibiting same sex marriage; to the religious persecution of Socrates, Hypatia, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Spinoza, and Charles Darwin. Progress threatens religion—this was true for and well known to the founders.

  The founders had firsthand experience here. Ben Franklin was renowned in his time for snatching “lightning from the sky and the scepter from tyrants.”49 Until he invented the lightning rod, ringing church bells specially baptized with water from the Jordan River were used to ward off lightning.50 This practice, which required humans to grasp a connection to a hunk of metal atop the highest structure in a town, killed more than 120 bell-ringers from 1750 to 1784, but was still believed to be effective.51 Many Christians did not believe humans had a right to defend themselves from divine attacks. Abbe Nollett, a man of the church, deemed it “as impious to ward off Heavens’ lightnings as for a child to ward off the chastening rod of its father.”52 Franklin retorted that “the Thunder of Heaven is no more supernatural than the Rain, Hail, or Sunshine of Heaven, against the Inconvenience of which we guard by Roofs & Shades without Scruple.”53 When organized Christianity failed to stop the spread of the useful invention, it blamed other natural phenomena, such as the 1755 Boston earthquake, on Franklin’s rods.54 John Adams condemned the religious opposition to Franklin’s rods, writing that they “met with all that opposition from the superstition, affectation of Piety, and Jealousy of new Inventions, that Inoculation to prevent the Danger of the Small Pox, and all other useful Discoveries, have met with in all ages of the World.”55 Franklin’s unholy invention was a blessing to humanity from the mind of a man, and religion fought it at every step.

  Portrait of Benjamin Franklin at his desk in front of a window; outside, lightning is shown striking a building, c. 1780.

  Scientific, political, and social progress all threaten religion, which is why the bible demands blind obedience—“do not revile the king, even in your thoughts”56—first to its god, and then to the state. God, even as only an idea, is a millstone around the neck of society, not an engine of progress.

  Abigail and John Adams’s first son, John Quincy Adams, may have best reinforced the Declaration as embodying the people’s right—their duty—to rebel against tyrannical governments in a speech before Congress. As a member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts, an office he held for nine terms after only a single term as president, Adams waged a lonely war against slavery. In 1836, the slaveholding states had successfully imposed a gag rule (the origin of that term) in the House, which essentially prohibited mentioning slavery. Adams rebelled against the rule as much as against slavery itself. On behalf of some constituents in 1842, he submitted a petition to dissolve the “Union of these States” over southern slavery. Harlow Giles Unger tells the story of the ensuing parliamentary conflict in his biography of the younger Adams:57

  Kentucky Congressman Thomas Marshall…moved to censure John Quincy for having “committed high treason when he submitted a petition for dissolution of the union.”

  “Sir,” John Quincy shot back, “what is high treason? The Constitution of the United States says what high treason is…. It is not for the gentleman from Kentucky, or his puny mind, to define what high treason is and confound it with what I have done.” John Quincy then ordered the clerk to read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence….

  “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation–”

  “Proceed!” John Quincy thundered. “Proceed! Down to ‘right’ and ‘duty’!”

  The clerk continued: “It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.”

  “Now, sir, if there is a principle sacred on earth and established by the instrument just read, it is the right of the people to alter, change, to destroy, the government if it becomes oppressive to them. There would be no such right existing if the people had not the power in pursuance of it to petition for it….

  “I rest that petition on the Declaration of Independence!” John Quincy boomed.

  John Quincy Adams was more orthodox than many of the founders, yet even he noted that the Declaration, not the bible, established the sacred principle of rebellion.

  THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE—and Paul’s epistle to the Romans in particular—contradicts the Declaration and the Constitution in another respect. It holds that governments are “established by God.”58 “By me,” meaning by the biblical god, “kings reign” and “rulers rule,” says the bible.59 The Declaration of Independence is based on a different idea: that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.” This is the very foundation of the self-government ideal and an explicit rejection of a god-given government. That rejection is embodied (and rather heavily emphasized) in the first three words of the Constitution, “We the People.” People give the government power and legitimacy, not gods. The Constitution and the Declaration directly contradict Christian principles of governmental authority.

  The Declaration emphasizes people while minimizing the divine or supernatural. The first sentence alone proves the Declaration’s concern for humanity:

  When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

  The Declaration concerns human events, the powers of the earth, and the opinions of humanity; the only possible mention of the divine or supernatural in the above sentence, “Nature’s God,” is—as discussed at length in chapter 4—not supernatural at all. “When in the course of human events,” as the political philosopher Matthew Stewart points out, “alerts us that the event to be announced does not arise from any divine intercourse.”60 The human and decidedly unsupernatural bent continues with one people severing a political connection with another people, and taking their place “among the powers of the earth.” Not heaven, the earth. Stewart again gets it right: “In this graceful opening sentence, the Declaration makes clear that the event to unfold and the reasons with which it will be explained are entirely circumscribed within the experience of this world.”61 The entire document enshrines a political philosophy that is, as Abraham Lincoln referred to it in the Gettysburg Address, “of the people, for the people, and by the people.”62

  If we look at just the first two paragraphs, the emphasis on “mankind” and this world is evident. Set against the “Nature’s God” and “their Creator” references, the humanity embedded in the Declaration is overwhelming:

  …human events…one people…another…mankind…powers of the earth…the opinions of mankind…all men…Governments are instituted among Men…consent of the governed…it is the Right of the People…to them…their Safety and Happiness…. all experience hath shewn, that mankind…to which they are accustomed…. their right…their duty…their future security…t
hese Colonies…tyranny over these States…a candid world.

  The Declaration was written not to justify the separation to a god; it was written because the founders held “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and wished to change those opinions. Becker taught us that the founders and their forebears focused on human endeavor and accomplishment, elevating both:

  This is precisely what the eighteenth century did: with the lantern of enlightenment it went up and down the field of human history looking for man in general, the universal man, man stripped of the accidents of time and place; it wished immensely to meet Humanity and to become intimate with the Human Race. If it could find Humanity it would have found man in general, the natural man; and so it would have some chance of knowing what were the rights and laws which, being suited to man in general, were most likely to be suited to particular men, everywhere and always.63

  The Declaration, the principles it embodied, and the political philosophy it outlined, are truly and thoroughly opposed to Judeo-Christian principles.

  This is not to say that American preachers and religious leaders of the time did not advocate independence and revolution; some did.64 But they did so in spite of biblical constraints. Robert Boucher, the Anglican minister opposed to independence, chastised his godly brethren for this crime: “Let a minister of God, then, stand excused if…he seeks not to amuse you by any flowery panegyrics on liberty. Such panegyrics are the productions of ancient heathens and modern patriots: nothing of the kind is to be met with in the Bible.”65 Preachers tortured biblical passages to fit their arguments, including independence; that is the preacher’s job. But in truth, ministers preaching independence relied on natural—not supernatural—law, just like the Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson.

  4

  Referrals: The Declaration’s References to a Higher Power

  “…the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God……their Creator……the Supreme Judge of the world……divine Providence…”

  — Declaration of Independence

  The Declaration repudiates Judeo-Christian values in its purpose, principles, and even taken as a whole. But because it contains quasi-religious language, Christian nationalists cite it regularly. As shown above, the Declaration makes four references that supposedly support the Judeo-Christian principles myth. In full, they read as follows (the language of Jefferson’s rough draft is included as well):1

  FIRST REFERENCE

  Final “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

  Draft “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth the equal & independant station to which the laws of nature & of nature’s god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.”

  SECOND REFERENCE

  Final “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

  Draft “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent, and from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

  Alteration likely suggested by Franklin and/or Adams.2

  THIRD REFERENCE

  Final “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…”

  Draft “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies…”

  Alteration likely suggested by Franklin and/or Adams.3

  FOURTH REFERENCE

  Final “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

  Draft “And for the support of this Declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

  Alteration suggested by the Continental Congress.4

  The Continental Congress assigned five men to a committee tasked with drafting the Declaration: Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. The committee then gave Jefferson the job. Franklin and Adams commented and suggested edits on two of Jefferson’s drafts before the draft went to the whole Continental Congress.

  The political philosophy Jefferson laid out in the Declaration depended only on the first reference, “the Laws of Nature…” This should be self-evident because he fully explained that philosophy in his original draft, which did not include the other three pseudo-religious references. Those three were added to the final draft either by Franklin and Adams or by the Continental Congress as a whole. Jefferson laid the foundation, built the structure, raised the walls and roof, put in the plumbing, wired the framework to give it life, and installed the other guts—the important stuff. The Continental Congress selected the color palette and trim. The Congress’s later changes did not alter the fundamental nature of Jefferson’s draft or the political philosophy it enshrined. Still, Jefferson complained of these mutilations to Richard Henry Lee. Lee sincerely wished “that the Manuscript had not been mangled as it is…. However the Thing is in its nature so good, that no Cookery can spoil the Dish for the palates of Freemen.”5 In other words, the principles of the Declaration were so sound that no veneer, religious or otherwise, could spoil it. Because the first reference was the one included in the original structure of the document, it did all the philosophical and rhetorical heavy lifting; it contributed most significantly to the document’s principles and requires more attention.

  But before looking at the references individually, note that some observations apply to all four. Neither the content nor the wording of these references supports the Judeo-Christian principles myth. Not a single reference mentions Jesus Christ, Yahweh, or a specifically Christian god. The references specify, at most, a broad deism or, possibly, a narrow theism in the “Supreme Judge” reference. Deism is the belief that a god or supernatural being created the universe but has played no role in events since, rather like a watchmaker who made the universe and set it in motion; deism has no organized or structured religion—it is simply this one belief. Theism is a belief that a god or gods play an active role in current events, tinkering with the watch’s gears, perhaps even after we die. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin and the Continental Congress could have chosen to root the entitlements, endowments, appeals, and protections in Jesus Christ or any other specific god, but they did not. Instead, they carefully selected references that do not specify any religious denomination or sectarian belief. These were deliberate men who knew they were drafting a monumental and historic document; they chose their words carefully. As University of Chicago constitutional scholar Geoffrey Stone put it, “in acknowledging Nature’s God, the Creator, and Divine Providence, the Declaration carefully and quite consciously eschewed any invocation of the Christian religion.”6

  That the four references are broad may actually explain why Christian nationalists claim them as their own. Naturally, readers with such a worldview assume that the Declaration is referring to their god, especially since a claim to h
old the ultimate, exclusive truth necessarily entails a belief that that truth is superior to others. But sectarian claims to these references are unsupported by the Declaration’s language.

  The references are not biblical. At the time, there were about eleven major English versions of bibles that the founders could have borrowed verbiage from.7 Two of the phrases, “divine Providence” and “Nature’s God,” do not appear in any of those bibles. Nor does the phrase “Supreme Judge of the World,” though the bible does occasionally speak of its god as a judge. More likely, this juridical phrase came from John Locke, who used “Supreme Judge of all Men” to refer to the biblical god in his Second Treatise of Government (1690),8 something the founders certainly read. And, of course, the Judeo-Christian god is described as a creator—in Genesis and at least five times outside the Genesis story9—but every religion that describes a creator-god and deism is defined solely by a belief in a cosmic creator-god. Scholars can argue forever about whether the references are deist or theist, but we can all be sure that they are not Christian.

  This was almost not the case. Jefferson’s rough draft did contain a mention of the Christian religion—in a section condemning the slave trade. But the Continental Congress removed this passage from the final version. The omitted paragraph helps illuminate another phrase, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” In the list of King George’s crimes, Jefferson wrote:

  he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative [his veto] for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce…10