Originally Published on: Aug 24, 2011
The Spirit of the Enlightenment
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
One prefatory caution about dividing up the history of ideas: There is no single correct way to do that, no matter how one goes about it; there will be things that will be obscured in the process. The “Age of Enlightenment,” like any other, had a spectrum. The German Enlightenment was not the same as the French, and the French were quite different than the Americans. There were many different leaders and outcomes. We had Jefferson; the French had Robespierre, for example. Regardless of these differences, there were also some general themes that were universal.
Paradigm Shift
Throughout the currents of history, there have been times of major paradigm shifts – outbursts of human understanding that drastically altered the base of human action in the world. This is reflected in all the realms of being; from art to science; from philosophy to moral values. The Enlightenment was one of those moments of radical shift in the collective psyche.
There were many thinkers that made up the melting pot of the Enlightenment. First, there were the great philosophers including the British Empiricists, such as Locke, Berkley, and Hume; as well as the Continental Rationalists, like Descartes and Spinoza; and the Romantics such as Montesquieu and Rousseau.
Second, there were the political revolutionaries, such as Jean-Paul Marat and Maximilien Robespierre of the French Revolution, and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson of the American. The late 1500s through the late 1800s was a bridge crossing from the medieval world to modernity. This movement can best be characterized as a mass movement away from religion, away from mythology, away from superstition and the bible. Our nation is a product of this very movement that we call the “Enlightenment”.
The Enlightenment was a transition in cosmology and epistemology, a transition from the church as overseer of all knowledge on how to go to heaven, as well as how the heavens go; to the emancipation of the mind of man to freely walk about his world.
(Note: Details on the shift from Aristotelian to Newtonian cosmology coming at a later date)
The Two Great Threats to Liberty
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813
What were the two greatest threats to individual liberty according to Enlightenment thinkers such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison? Feudal monarchy and religion. The Enlightenment was man’s Great Emancipation from superstition, ignorance, servitude, and intolerance of the medieval age. (Thus the term, “Enlightenment”)
One place we can clearly see this sentiment is in the essay, A Dissertation on the Cannon and Feudal Law, by John Adams. Here Adams warns of both ecclesiastical and civil tyranny, for they have been the two forces whose, “jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
In the opening, Adams states that “since the promulgation of Christianity, the two great systems of tyranny that have sprung from this original are the canon and the feudal law.” The method used to inflict this tyranny, according to Adams, was by, “reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and numbers.”
The most powerful meme that found fertile soil in the minds of many was the acknowledgment of man’s ability, and of the power of natural reason to provide the surest means toward a steady improvement in the condition of mankind; with the newly freed tools of reason, science, philosophy, and natural ethics, standing at the cutting edge of progress. Once freed from the shackles of irrational religious beliefs, man could then master his own true nature.
The “Creator God” of the Enlightenment was more of a Great Watchmaker than a personal magician, who was unavailable for petitions, divine revelation, or miraculous interventions. The “sacred rights of mankind” were not to be found among “old parchments or musty records,” but were to be found within the “whole volume of human nature” itself.
This watchmaker (similar to the “force” in the movie Star Wars) made it possible for man to discover the perfections within nature by endowing human beings with reason; thus empowering man to model his own ethics and political philosophy upon this natural perfection, i.e., “Nature’s God.” To Enlightenment thinkers, eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was not the fall of man, but rather the new dawn of man. This was NOT a Christian enterprise, though in the American Enlightenment, religion was allowed to come along for the ride.
General Principles of the Enlightenment
1. View toward man possessing a natural goodness, and the ability of the rational human being to achieve happiness through his productive works. This was a total rejection of the theology that held rule over the minds of men for centuries (and still insists on having political power today) that man was plagued by a vicarious guilt and that man’s natural condition, was one of depravity.
To the leading Enlightenment thinkers of the age, man was not saddled with original sin, nor was he in need of salvation through a divinely inspired and ordained human blood sacrifice. This is probably one of the most striking incompatibilities between the Enlightenment principles, which ultimately served as the foundation for our Democratic Federalist Republic, and the bedrock founding principles of Christian and Jewish theology. The contrast between these two ideas of man is like night and day.
2. Perfectibility of the human race. Not to be confused with Nietzsche’s Übermensch. To the Enlightenment mind, man held the power to be the author of his own happiness through mastering virtue. This is NOT to be confused with religion, for many of these men held ethics derived from Natural Philosophy, not divine revelation. In fact, you will find this in Aristotle’s Ethics. Happiness was something attainable here in this world, and in this life, through the fruits of liberty, enterprise (happiness through works and property), and natural virtues. This was in opposition to the Puritan theology that held firmly to the belief in the total depravity of man, with a few randomly chosen elect, who, through no works of their own; would either be lucky enough to be graced with eternal happiness in the world to come, or, for most people, would be tossed into the fires of hell.
3. Equality before the law – beyond that, equality ends. There was the recognition of a natural hierarchy within nature, for not all men are equally as lucky in their general starting points in life, nor endowed equally with natural talents or potentials. But under the law, all men are guaranteed the natural rights of liberty, equality, and justice. Law is not a divinely revealed holy writ delivered to some bronze-age bandits, but deducible from both the external sensible laws of nature and from man’s rational internal conscious awareness of universally self-evident truths. These truths are recognizable to every rational mind, rather than exclusive and unknowable mysteries that must be taken upon blind faith.
4. Man’s natural right to individual liberty. The Enlightenment was the blossoming of the idea of the individual as the sovereign who lives his life primarily for his own sake. This is the exact opposite of the Marxist utopia and the Puritan theology held by men such as John Winthrop, who envisioned a city on a hill where the powers of the individual ultimately must be harnessed and sacrificed to the greater collective good.
5. Rational epistemology. This outright rejection of divine revelation was a major paradigm shift. Our Enlightenment founders aforementioned all feverishly held to reason and discounted revelation as a viable tool in ascertaining the truths of nature and morality. Religion had lost its authoritative power to dictate how the heavens go, or how to go to heaven.
6. Tolerance. The Enlightenment mind held religion in low esteem concerning its relationship with political power. It was dreadfully obvious that any time religion held political power, liberty abruptly came to an end. Religion, with its theology, priests, and prophets, was NEVER to be trusted with political power. The gates of the body politic were to be guarded against theocratic incursions at all costs. In order to have political as well as religious freedom, one must first have freedom from religion – religion, via the priest, makes a slave of man’s mind.
7. Separation of Church and State. Our system of government was born of a strong resistance to the power of religion in politics.
Pseudo-Christian Nation
“The Presbyterian clergy are the loudest; the most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus. They paint to reestablish, by law, the holy inquisition.”
-Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820
Mark Levin recently offered the following argument on his radio show that reflects a common meme among conservative group-think:
1. “There is no separation between church and state”
2. The government can’t establish any religion, thus creating a theocracy
3. Government Laws and decisions should be based on Christianity
Notice what Mark is actually saying here. He’s implying that the separation is a one-way street; that the founders intended for the doctrines of the Old and New Testament to be given the force of Law! Levin is not simply objecting to the idea that people must leave their personal faith outside the voting booth. He is explicitly expressing his desire to make Biblical mythology into Civil Law!
In opposition to any such theocratic political agenda, I first offer up the lack of any mention, in any of our founding documents, that Christianity is to be afforded a special place and rights, or should hold the force of Law. These documents, and the correspondences between the major participants in the federal convention of 1787, are mysteriously void of any mention of the Bible or Christianity. I leave it to my adversaries to show otherwise.
So, who exactly did our founders draw upon to construct our Democratic Federal Republic? The answer to this question was stated many times by the founders themselves. For example, in preparation for the Convention debates, James Madison, “Father of the Constitution,” called upon his good friend and mentor, Thomas Jefferson, to loan him a few books. The topics of these books included natural law, political history, ancient and modern confederacies, and the Encyclopedia, the ultimate in eighteenth-century knowledge.
For the separation of powers between the three branches of government, Madison looked to such books as Montesquieu’s, The Spirit of Laws, rather than the Book of Isaiah, as many people today maintain. Aristotle’s Politics and Ethics were also on the reading list. John Locke’s Second Essay Concerning Civil Government certainly served as the framework for the new constitution, and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding served as the foundation of the new epistemological standard. And, how could Madison resist the scientific humanism of Francis Bacon?!
I will now offer up a few of our founders’ own thoughts, words, and actions concerning religion and political power:
“Government’ as well as religion, has furnished its schisms, its persecutions, and its devices for fattening idleness on the earnings of the people. It has its hierarchy of emperors, kings, princes, and nobles, as that of popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests. In short, cannibals are not to be found in the wilds of America only, but are reveling in the blood of every living people. Turning, then, from this loathsome combination of Church and State, and weeping over the follies of our fellow men who yield themselves the willing dupes and drudges of these mountebanks.”
-Thomas Jefferson to C. Clay. 1815
In other words – or rather, in my own words, the cup of religious history is filled to overflowing with the opposition to knowledge, and with blood. On Tuesday, June 5, 1787, James Madison addressed the convention concerning the dangers religion could pose to republican liberty as he stated: “religion itself may become a motive to persecution & oppression. – These observations are verified by the histories of every country ancient & modern.”
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
-Thomas Jefferson,letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802
Treaty of Tripoli
Art. 11. “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
-Treaty of Tripoli, Unanimously Approved by Congress and signed by John Adams on June 7, 1797
James Madison
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
-James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance
The idea of a separation between church and state that so strongly influenced our Founders was introduced by John Locke in his, A Letter Concerning Toleration. Locke argues for a complete separation between church and state.
“For the commonwealth of the Jews, different in that from all others, was an absolute theocracy; nor was there, or could there be, any difference between that commonwealth and the Church. The laws established there concerning the worship of One Invisible Deity were the civil laws of that people and a part of their political government, in which God Himself was a legislator. But there is absolutely no such thing under the Gospel as a Christian commonwealth.
“There are indeed, many cities and kingdoms that have embraced the faith of Christ, but they have retained their ancient form of government, with which the law of Christ hath not at all meddled. He, indeed, hath taught men how, by faith and good works, they may obtain eternal life; but He instituted no commonwealth. He prescribed unto His followers no new and peculiar form of government, nor put He the sword into any magistrate’s hand.”
-John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration.
As I said before, the Enlightenment was an age composed of a spectrum of varying ideas that, while differing in some aspects, all flowed from the same universal river of Enlightenment. The separation between church and state is one of these general themes where we also see a spectrum. The French Enlightenment quickly turned into a Gnostic enterprise in thinking that they could literally change human nature. Rather than having freedom of religion, the French attacked religion straightaway.
This was different than the meme of the American Enlightenment, where it was held that man could master, rather than alter human nature. Rather than declaring physical war on religion, our framers opted to tolerate religion, and felt that with the further advances of science and natural philosophy, there would be a natural move away from irrational superstition within the general population.
Regardless of the variances, all rejected religion to one degree or another, including Christianity.
A final thought from Tom:
“I have now gone through the bible, as a man would go through a wood with an axe on his shoulder, and fell trees. Here they lie; and the priests, if they can, may replant them. They may, perhaps, stick them in the ground, but they will never make them grow.- I now pass on to the books of the New Testament…”
-The Age of Reason, Part Two Chapter One, Thomas Paine