"No one," Robespierre warned his countrymen in the early days of the French Revolution, "likes armed missionaries." If only they had heeded his advice, and if only Robespierre himself had only heeded it, everyone would have been the better for it. More than two-hundred years later, Robespierre's words, and the perils wrought from France's disregard of them, offer a lesson to Americans.

What a sage, that Robespierre.

"Armed missionaries." I'm not sure I see the relevance to today. American foreign policy does not seem to be based on any religous ideas, nevertheless, it could be argued that American foreign policy is involved in to many areas.

Poster: The belief in democracy is fundamentally a ersatz-religious belief, no?

Yes, in the same sense the belief that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are religious.

Short

I think the belief in democracy may have been fundamentally religous one for the founders of America. Modern day America is largely a post-Christian scoiety. Sure there are some Christian influences but I don't think we could call America or the West a Christian society. Religon does not seem to guide American foreign policy. Perhaps I'm wrong.

On the contrary, America seems to me very thoroughly a Christian society ... albeit under a government that is supposed to maintain a strict separation of church and state. If it's not Christian, then how is it not?

Jeremiah

It seems to me that modern day America generally does not conform itself to Christian principles. The entertainment we watch, abortions run rampant, high murder rates, and high divorce rates just for starters. One cannot pray in public schools. Manger displays in public places are not allowed. A judge cannot even display the 10 commandments.

Sure there are some Christian influences but this country is far from being a Christian nation. The Republican party has some Christian leaders but they have very little influence over the direction of the party and that influence is becoming even less.

Poster: I think you're misunderstanding the notion of "missionary." Robespierre is using missionary in a secularized sense; just as one can be a "martyr" for something that is strictly speaking not a religion, so one could be a missionary, have a creed or doctrine (e.g., "liberty, equality, and fraternity"), go on crusades, etc. etc., all for ersatz religions.

Ben L. provided a good example. Some people read the declaration, the constitutional preamble, the gettysburg address, etc, as quasi-scriptural -- as though one were somehow departing from the American "creed" (and therefore unpatriotic) if one denies the innate equality of all people. The belief in democracy can and does motivate "armed missionaries," such as Napeoleanic armies "freeing" Italy and Germany. Perhaps if you don't take the word so literally Robespierre's quotation will make more sense as applied to today.

Some people read the declaration, the constitutional preamble, the gettysburg address, etc, as quasi-scriptural -- as though one were somehow departing from the American "creed" (and therefore unpatriotic) if one denies the innate equality of all people.

How else should it be construed? Are the founding documents the basis for America or not?

And some of the "people" in mention include the Founding Fathers and Ronald Reagan.

Ben L: It depends on whether or not you understand "scripture." Is the line "All men are created equal" like revelation? Are they part of a creed, and if I deny them am I therefore not American? Hardly. See, Thomas Jefferson was not God or a prophet or anything. Also, one is an American or not regardless of what one's beliefs; but one is not in a religion "regardless of one's beliefs."

The Founding Fathers did not consider their own writing "quasi-scriptural" (that would be blatantly blasphemous), and whether or not Reagan did is perhaps up for grabs, and would require a lit of wiggling about what "quasi-scriptural" means. Besides, he can be wrong, too. Oh, wait, did I just commit another heresy?

But why am I arguing? You're proving that for many political ideology is secularized religion. That was my point. It's just that you don't mind it and I do. OK.

Short, you can be incredibly annoying sometimes. I never suggested Jefferson was anything resembling a God. He was a man -- a bad one, even -- who did some very important things.

The idea that "all men are created equal" and are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not a scientific fact. It is a belief. Furthermore, it is a fundamentally American belief. Yes, of course you can disagree and still be an American -- this is yet another tenet of Americanism, for lack of a better word. But your disagreement doesn't negate the facts.

Also, I wasn't saying that the Founding Fathers and Reagan considered their writings to be scripture. I was referencing the fact that they felt these rights to be God-given, and that America was a country blessed/chosen by God.

Political ideology is not a "secularized religion" to me. And America is not a political ideology.

Ben. I'm sorry to be annoying. But you did imply that these "founding documents" are "quasi-scriptural." You also said that "the belief that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the belief in democracy were religious beliefs, and you implied that you were cool with that. So, if this isn't secularized religion, what type of religion is it? If Jefferson authored something "quasi-scriptural" doesn't this imply a "quasi-God" position? If not, what the heck does "scriptural" mean here?

Robespierre's zanger certainly was zangy. However his insight into the National Security and Foreign Interests of the USA, and how to protect those two things in the year 2005, was non-existant.

And he was French.

you did imply that these "founding documents" are "quasi-scriptural."
If I was unclear in my initial post, I re-stated my position afterward.

You also said that "the belief that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the belief in democracy were religious beliefs, and you implied that you were cool with that.

No, I said that they could be considered "religious" beliefs in the same sense that favoring representative democracy would be "religious." In other words, they are not facts (for instance, you can't prove that people have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness); one must simply "have faith" in them.

I'd like you to answer a question I asked earlier...

Some people read the declaration, the constitutional preamble, the gettysburg address, etc, as quasi-scriptural -- as though one were somehow departing from the American "creed" (and therefore unpatriotic) if one denies the innate equality of all people.

How else should it be construed? Are the founding documents the basis for America or not?

So now according to Ben L., the two types of sentences are "facts" and "religious faith-based."

I don't think "America" is founded primarily on any documents, except for perhaps partly the Constitution as expressing the agreed-upon legal structure of the union of independent states. But in any case, there is so much else (historical, religious, cultural, etc.) that is also part of the "basis for America." Would those things be quasi-scriptural as well? Anyhow, I don't see any of those "founding documents" as "quasi-scriptural" if by that is meant that they should be taken as either (1) a form of revelation, or (2) expressing the shared faith of a community defined by their beliefs.

Perhaps our disagreement comes down to this: America is not an idea. It is not based on an idea.

But now, all of a sudden, you're back to advocating Americanism as an ersatz religion. I'm confused about your position.

Short, you were the one to use the phrase "quasi-scriptural," not I. You're so caught up in this overly-anaalytical nonsense that you seem to be losing your common sense.

Perhaps our disagreement comes down to this: America is not an idea. It is not based on an idea.

This is false. America was founded on numerous ideas / principles. How in God's name is this debatable?

So now according to Ben L., the two types of sentences are "facts" and "religious faith-based."

What? Look, it's not very hard to understand. Here are two statements:

1) This text is black.

2) Murder is evil.

The first is a fact. It's neither an opinion nor a value judgment. The second is a belief that may accurately be described as "religious faith-based."

What is the miscommunication here?

Perhaps our disagreement comes down to this: America is not an idea. It is not based on an idea.

Short how could you possibly say that America is not an idea and is not founded on an idea? Yes America is a geographical region and a nation-state. It has also always been something more than that.

America was just as much founded on an idea as the Soviet Union was. The difference being America on a good one, and the USSR on a horrificly twisted one.

"We Hold These Truths to be Self Evidene, that All Men are Created Equal..."

No, you cannot disagree with that concept and be considered an American in my mind. You can be a citizen of the United States, but you are not an American.

Ben L: If _you_ don't like my choice of words ("quasi-religious" and "quasi-scriptural") then _you_ should stop saying that quasi-scriptural is a proper way of viewing the, e.g., Declaration, and stop saying that all political value-judgments are religious faith-based.

It is hard to understand something that is false. I don't think that "religious" is coterminous with "nonfactual."

Notice, Ben T, that you just said that atheists cannot be American.

Also, the USSR is a utopian community that actually did try to found itself on a system of ideas. Reality reasserted itself. "America" isn't a utopian community, and didn't found itself on a system of ideas. Sure, various people in various states had certain principles that informed their political decisions about state governments and about the federal organization of states, but they weren't like, e.g., the French, trying to build a political community ex nihilo based on some quasi-religious ideological system.

Both Bens think America is an idea or is founded on ideas. You two are making the mistake I think Hayek would call "constructivism." Look at it this way: is Virginia or Maryland founded on a set of ideas, say, the way, the village is in the movie "The Village"? No.

Short: No, Ben T did not say atheists cannot be American. You don't have to believe in God to feel as though humans have equal worth. Why do you take everything literally?

you_ should stop saying that quasi-scriptural is a proper way of viewing the, e.g., Declaration, and stop saying that all political value-judgments are religious faith-based. ... I don't think that "religious" is coterminous with "nonfactual."

I think you might be going crazy. I never once even used the term "quasi-scriptural." The Founders were not Gods. The founding documents are not the Bible.

A fact is something objective in the scientific sense. Religions, with their varied descriptions of the beginning of time, and more importantly their varied sets of ethics, are not objective in this way. This does not mean that I am a moral relativist. All it means is that I cannot scientifically prove why greed is sinful. I simply have faith that it is, and if I must, I can support my belief with real-life examples (just as I can in the case of my support of democracy), but I cannot FACTUALLY PROVE IT. You remind me of the kind of person who denies that Christianity is a religion.

(America) didn't found itself on a system of ideas.

This is flatly wrong. Here are some of the ideas: limited government, separation of powers, human equality (not of ability or talent, but worth), property rights, religious freedom, and innumerable other freedoms that set us apart from the rest of the world at that point in history.

When you break everything down to a dispassionate science in your hyper-intellectual way, not only do you lose any semblance of common sense, but you also minimize the greatness of America. It is not 'just another country, with its ups and downs' (as many Chomskyites like to say). America is exceptional.

Ben:

1) comment 9 above, you clearly imply that the Declaration should be construed as quasi-scriptural. Take it back if you want. I don't care. You said it, and I think you mean it.

2) You are still acting as though the two types of sentences are religious and actually factually provable (as in science! Ha, ho, he.). OK. Use words however you want, but I don't think this has a leg to stand on.

3) You see "America" as a nation that was founded in 1776 in order to instantiate certain quasi-religious ideological principles. I think the US was "founded" as a confederation of states with very limited purpose of handling the interstate policy and foreign policy of those states. Two points here: (a) I think your view is constructivist in Hayek's sense. (b) Historical fact (not quite scientifically "provable" though!) shows that your Lincolnian rewriting of the Founding is false.

Two points here: (a) I think your view is constructivist in Hayek's sense.

I couldn't possibly care less.

(b) Historical fact (not quite scientifically "provable" though!) shows that your Lincolnian rewriting of the Founding is false.

What is your proof? I have the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on my side. Do these documents mean what they say or not?

I leave you with two quotes. The first is from a Dinesh D'Souza article, and the second is from Thomas Paine.

Alexander Stephens, former vice president of the Confederacy, published a two-volume history of the Civil War between 1868 and 1870 in which he hardly mentioned slavery, insisting that the war was an attempt to preserve constitutional government from the tyranny of the majority. But this is not what Stephens said in the great debates leading up to the war. In his "Cornerstone" speech, delivered in Savannah, Ga., on March 21, 1861, at the same time that the South was in the process of seceding, Stephens said that the American Revolution had been based on a premise that was "fundamentally wrong." That premise was, as Stephens defined it, "the assumption of equality of the races." Stephens insisted that instead: "Our new [Confederate] government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea. Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great and moral truth."

We have it in our power to begin the world over again.

Ben R.... The R stands for Random, Romantic Revolutionary, and Revisionism...

(a) Why would I care about what Stephans said? Or what D'Souza says about what he said? Random.

(b) Paine is crazy, and representative only of one extremist wing of the American revolutionists. I can't think of any non-delusional meaning for his statement, and I don't think most of the founders would ever have said it. His statement expresses a romantic revolutionary hallucination typical of, e.g., the French.

(c) The Declaration of Independence didn't found a nation called America. To say so is Lincolnian revisionism. It didn't even found the states, which existed (albeit not independently) prior to 1776.

(d) I can't see how the constitution supports your side at all, since it doesn't on any straightforward reading "found" a "nation" or even enunciate any of the lofty quasi-religious principles upon which you think this nation was founded. It's preamble is sober, non-idealistic, non-missionary-istic, non-nationalistic. What are you taling about?

3) You see "America" as a nation that was founded in 1776 in order to instantiate certain quasi-religious ideological principles. I think the US was "founded" as a confederation of states with very limited purpose of handling the interstate policy and foreign policy of those states.

-Short

You apparently missed out on the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate, later debates within congress and the judiciary, and finally the Civil War.

You also apparently missed out on the fact that the US Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation, was the document that was finally decided upon.

Article I, Sections eight nine and ten:

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Seems like Congress has a lot more authority than you would like to accept.

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck...

BY GEORGE I THINK IT'S A DUCK!

Ben R.... The R stands for Random, Romantic Revolutionary, and Revisionism...

In your quest to call me a revisionist, let's not lose sight of the fact that my view on this matter is without question the most widely held. Ah, you must be right -- we're all a bunch of dummies and only a true sage like you understands the matter.

I can't think of any non-delusional meaning for his statement

It's because you're essentially an intellectual -- you seem to lack even the most basic common sense. Let me try to explain his statement.

First, he does not mean that we are God-like figures that can concoct spherical land and water masses.

What he is talking about is something that many others have discussed. The standard position for the world throughout history has been misery and servitude. The creation of the United States, with its revolutionary ideals regarding freedom, changed the course of history.

The Declaration of Independence didn't found a nation called America

Out of curiosity, when was the US founded? The word "found" when referring to nations, in my understanding, describes the point in time when a nation gains its independence.

What don't you understand about these very American words:

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This was unique, revolutionary stuff.

I missed a comment of yours earlier. You said that the founding documents did not "(express) the shared faith of a community defined by their beliefs." How can that be true? First of all, the Declaration says that WE hold these truths to be self-evident. And the Constitution begins with WE the People. They are very explicitly the shared and defining views of the American community.

haha I just started reading "A Patriot's History of the United States", and interestingly enough, here's what Schweikart and Allen have to say on the second page of the introduction:

The ideas they fought for together in 1776 and debated in 1787 were paramount. And that is what American history is truly about -- ideas. Ideas such as "All men are created equal"; the United States is the "last, best hope" of earth; and America "is great, because it is good."

None of the stuff in the constitution that T. quotes disproves my contention at all. The government of the federation is to provide a common currency, provide a uniform rule of bankruptcies, declare war and punish pirates, etc etc. This all has to do with either foreign policy or intrastate relations (e.g., establishing a shared interstate commercial system). I feel vindicated. The US wasn't founded as a nation with all sovereign powers of other nations. Notice that the US legislature has the power to start a post office and to regulate currency, but they don't have the power to make murder or rape illegal. What kind of nation is that?

L: Quote the Declaration where it founds the nation. "These united colonies are ... free and independent states." Notice the plural. No nation founded in 1776.

Why would quoting Schweikart and Allen be appropriate here, L?

My view is actually quite simple: The United States was started as a federated union of independent, preexisting and perduring, sovereign states in 1781 (articles of confederation). The union was made stronger in the federated structure of 1789, in which these states surrendered certain enumerated powers -- basically the powers having to do with all foreign policy and all interstate policy (especially policy having to do with interstate economics), and the power to radically change the form of their government (the states have to be republics). They had declared their independence together and fought the British together, and shared a common political and cultural past. All of that was forshadowings, preparations for the formal union that occured first with the articles of confederation and then was made stronger with the constitution of the federal system. When did the US get founded? Well, clearly it happens in stages, and at no stage is it founded as a "nation" in any normal sense at all. I'll ask again, where is the power to punish murderers?

So Paine is wrong -- not only is it in principle impossible to simply start the political world over again (because we always carry with us what has gone before), but this is not what the founders did. (After all, Paine was an American revolutionary, but he was not an American founder.) At no point -- not even in 1776 -- did the founders abolish their political world wholecloth and rebuild everything. Let alone, did they abolish wholecloth and rebuild everything in order to instantiate certain quasi-religious political principles! That is what the USSR tried to do. It was ugly. It was an enormous social enginering project. That is not what the thirteen colonies/states did. When the founders were designing the fed gov, they were motivated by certain ideas about limited government, liberty, and equality (in a broad sense), etc. But the US constitution was not a large social enginering project to instantiate quasi-religious philosophical principles in a great new society. And that is the what your rhetoric implies.

It seems that the thrust of your argument is: The United States is not a nation. It's a fairly odd position to take.

Why would quoting Schweikart and Allen be appropriate here, L?

It's appropriate because those guys just wrote an enormous tome on American history, and we're just two d-bags who are arguing on the Internet.

At no point -- not even in 1776 -- did the founders abolish their political world wholecloth and rebuild everything.

Again, you're taking the comment literally. Of course the past is always part of us. Who would deny that? The point is that the founders were motivated by the various injustices they faced in the past to create an amazing new country. What I'm saying here is not very controversial.

But the US constitution was not a large social enginering project to instantiate quasi-religious philosophical principles in a great new society.

I think your hatred of all things progressive has translated into a minimizing of the American revolution. No, I'm not claiming that the founders were socialistic progressives. But they did set the table for a "great new society" in which people were to be free to worship whatever God they choose, run for elected office, speak their minds, and create businesses without getting taxed to death by some monarch. Why are you downplaying this? Please, put your conservative, Lincoln-hating ideology aside for a moment.

-ben

Minimizing the American revolution? Well, perhaps, as a reaction to people who wish to exaggerate the revolution. Sure. Also, I think perhaps the US has developed into a nation, though I think it clearly wasn't founded as a "nation" in any normal sense in 1776 (as you claim) or in 1781 or in 1789. After all, could there be national laws against rape or murder today? I don't see why not... justified via civil rights, in turn justified via the interstate commerce clause... whatever. That just goes to show that we aren't today the type of union we once were.

Also, I think ideals are more important in the US's identity than they are in other countries' identities, but I think exaggerating this can be dangerous, because this can mislead us into being "armed missionaries" abroad and at home. Saying that the US and the USSR were equally founded on ideas is, I think, an obvious case of such exaggeration. Saying that I'm not American if I don't agree with Ben T's non-literal rendering of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence is another case of such exaggeration. The US is not a church, and I can't be excommunicated for denying Lincoln's version of 1776.

I just don't think the US government was founded in a conscious attempt to build a great new society. Afterall, the individual states in 1789 wouldn't have given the federal government the power for such an experiment. It was founded for the sake of helping the people of the several states better secure a good society for themselves. Reminding ourselves of that is healthy, I think, because it will perhaps keep us from many-- otherwise historically justified-- federally sponsored, social enginering projects.

As far as me taking things to literally, perhaps it's rather that I don't particularly like imprecise political rhetoric that gives people false notions of the political good and the politically possible. In the future, Ben T shouldn't compare us to the delusional USSR or say that one must agree that "all men are created" in order to be American. Rhetoric has consequences. Words mean things, and don't blame the hearer for taking your words seriously.

Finally, I don't like the tone in which my patriotism is questioned because I don't buy into the exaggerated version of American history currently on sale by a political faction trying to justify their policies. I love America, partly _because_ I think you are wrong about 1776 and the nature of the federal union of the states. In other words, I think your version of history makes America less lovable.