He saw that as the Bible requires Christians to bear witness to the Truth, so too does the Declaration of Independence require Americans to bear witness to certain self-evident truths.
To be sure, the Truth of the Bible is not identical with the truths of the Declaration. But the two orders of truth do overlap, and where they overlap, they powerfully reinforce each other. Indeed, the Declaration assumes many of the central teachings of the Bible.
When our Declaration asserts “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”, it makes some key assumptions.
It assumes that God is sovereign over the universe.
It assumes that God created man.
- Newt Gingrich, from the “Liberty University Commencement Address“
Strictly speaking, I don’t think Gingrich is quite right here. Jefferson uses the phrase “Nature’s God” elsewhere precisely to distance these “inalienable rights” from “God” proper. The American Constitution is a very secular document, and the religious beliefs of its Framers – Deists for the most part – are anathema to Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims alike.
I’m not saying this to say Newt is lying, or that America is meant to destroy Christianity or anything like that. I just don’t want to simplify our history for you, and let you think there are easy answers. In fact, what makes the rest of Gingrich’s speech so compelling is that he does not allow for easy answers about the relationship of religion and the state:
The Founders considered religion a great benefit to society. They had a very straightforward belief that the purpose of government was the protection of liberty, and that the maintenance of liberty inevitably required virtue among its citizens. The “pursuit of Happiness” was actually a Scottish enlightenment phrase meaning virtue and wisdom.
And if virtue was to survive in the American experiment, it would require “true religion”, which was that religion which cultivates the virtues necessary to the protection of liberty.
Implicit within this vision of the Founding Fathers is a pluralistic sensibility. Any true religion would be therefore deserving of the respect of the government, which would include the freedom to express in public the moral principles of such a true religion.
Constitutional self-government requires personal self-government; the more the government can rely on its citizens, the less it will need to govern them because they will govern themselves.
This belief that religion was an indispensable support of republican government was to be found throughout the founding generation.
Its strongest and clearest statement is to be found in George Washington’s “Farewell Address”. He said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.
It is this kind of subtlety that no candidate on the Democratic or Republican side can match right now. Gingrich moves from almost saying “the Christian God underlies the Declaration of Independence” to “virtue and wisdom” were hallmarks of the Scottish enlightenment that informed how the Founders thought about religion. The message is clear for those who think atheism is a good thing: if America is atheist, there will be no virtue in civic life. None whatsoever. In fact, the lack of virtue from religion will mean the death of the intellect.
But religion conceived rightly – “true religion” – ironically leads to an acceptance of all religions by those who can govern themselves. In other words, the test of a true religion is how the practitioners of it behave: if they suicide bomb and raise money for terrorists in order to throw another nation “into the sea,” as they may say, that sort of thing is probably not going to come under “true religion.” And Gingrich beautifully takes apart the Wahhabi ideology as not treating anyone as equal, and thus not respecting the fundamental tenet of the Declaration.
I can’t begin to express to you how good this rhetoric is. In an address meant for a fundamentalist Christian audience, Gingrich has managed to talk to those who might be more secularly inclined to see the good religion has, as the tolerance an atheist might demand can only come from religion. Gingrich shows how the American order has a nice little system for showing how religion is judged objectively by the government – it must promote “civic virtue” – and thus shows how PC nonsense is a break from the Founding, even if one conceives of the Founding as secular. For political correctness is identity politics without necessitating virtue; it is tolerance used to justify intolerance. He also brings back one of my favorite themes, that of equality, and shows that it is about treating people with dignity, and that is the fundamental flaw of the brand of Islamism we are fighting, as well as the terrorists. Dignity for them only comes through violence.
Which brings us to how the modern secular American order and the Biblical order agree: both seek peace, and realize that peace has a lot to do with justice, and justice involves standing up for each other. I can’t think of a more positive or beautiful way of rendering why our religious diversity is important, and I am really stunned this speech is not getting more attention.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Filed under: american politics, Christian, conservative, Muslim, newt gingrich, Religion
Ok so heres the skinny. Ive been extra busy with my buisness outside of The Irate Nation. I have made efforts in recruiting some guest bloggers. And to them I am greatful.
