Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I appreciate Sandy's point that the Declaration could be seen as
consistent with Judaism and some other religions, too.  My point was
chiefly that the Declaration seems more consistent with a religious
system that accepts an interventionist God than with Deism (at least as
I've seen Deism defined).  I inferred that because most Americans of the
era were Christians, the public meaning of the document would have been
understood as referring to the God that they generally believed in.  But
if the claim were that the document was understood as being ecumenical
enough to include the God of the Old Testament, I see nothing in the
Declaration inconsistent with that.

	But I do see the Declaration's reference to divine Providence
and to God as Judge as not being quite consistent with a Deistic public
meaning for the document.

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford
Levinson
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 10:09 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of
Independence


Quite frankly, I think that that there is not a scintilla of language in
the Declaration that bespeaks "Chrstianity" as a religious doctrine
involving a Savior., etc.  (There's nothing in the Declaration that
would suggest that Christmas or Easter would be of any importance.)
Theories of "divine Providence" are rife not only in Judaism, but, of
course, in many other religious systems.  And, by the way, "Laws ... of
Nature's God" sounds, at the end of the day, more Catholic than resonant
with the Protestants who arrived in the New World, who generally
emphasized saving grace more than good works defined through fidelity to
law.  (Indeed, Christianity has gotten a lot of mileage out of
criticizing Judaism for excessive "legalism.")

  The best econstittuional vidence for a Christian America is the
skipping of Sunday when counting the days for presidential vetoes and
the reference, at the very end of the Constitution (though not part of
what we usually look to for legal significanc) to "the year of our
Lord."  On the other hand, one of the truly great provisions of the
original Constitution is Article VI and its explicit repudiation of any
religious tests for holding office, including, presumably, the necessity
to believe that the dating system for years has anything whatsoever to
do with "our [collective] Lord," just as one can operate under the
Jewish calendar without believing for an instant that the world was
created some 5500 years ago. 

sandy


From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Sat 12/18/2004 10:39 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence


I'm not positive, but it sounds to me like Paul is saying that the
vision of God expressed in the Declaration is generally Deistic.  Deism,
as I understand it, is defined as "The belief, based solely on reason,
in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no
control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and
giving no supernatural revelation" (I drew this from dictionary.com,
which is based on the American Heritage Dictionary).

But even if "endowed by their Creator" and "Laws . . . of Nature's God"
are as consistent with Deism as with Christianity, can the same be said
about "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of
our intentions" and "a firm reliance on the protection of divine
Providence"?  The rhetoric, at least, sounds like a God who at least
judges people after their deaths ("Supreme Judge of the world") and
perhaps even protects people in this life ("protection of divine
Providence").

Now it may well be that Jefferson didn't fully believe in this rhetoric
himself:  Politicians may often use language that they think of as
appealing to the public even if they themselves might have put things
differently in private life.  But it sounds like the public meaning of
the Declaration referred to a judging and perhaps even interventionist
God, and not simply a creator.  Or am I mistaken?

Eugene



Paul Finkelman writes:

Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but
rather a diestic "creator" or "nature's God."