Isn't it peculiar, though, that the most fervent evangelical Christian believers in this country are also the most fervently patriotic? They seem to see no distinction whatsoever between their committment to Jesus and their faith in America, including unqualified support for any foreign military adventure. For them, a non-Christian American civil religion seems not to even exist. Or is it possible that they are simply not aware of its existence?

@Richard Parker ***Isn't it peculiar, though, that the most fervent evangelical Christian believers in this country are also the most fervently patriotic?***

I think you can be both fervently Christian and fervently patriotic (I am!). Indeed, I think the Christians make the best patriots—provided they put the first things first: Christ before country.

***For them, a non-Christian American civil religion seems not to even exist.***

I think that's partially right. I think many people simply haven't thought much about it and assume that most everyone thinks that the God of America is the the Trinitarian God of Christianity. That's one of the things that bugs me about trying to make orthodox Christians of founders like John Adams and George Washington. We shouldn't assume that everyone attended the same Sunday School we did. Sometimes even good Americans can have a completely difference conception of God than we evangelicals do.

I'll do a post linking to this. I think this gets it right, more or less.

Some readers/co-bloggers will disagree and try to save the civil religion under "Judeo-Christian" Providentialism, after all just about every citizen back then was a professing "Christian" of some sort even if some/many of them like "Christians" Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin (yes, they understood themselves to be "Christians" not "Deists") didn't worship a Triune God, but a unitary one.

Yet, when it came time to dealing with the one group of non-Western, non-Judeo-Christian types -- the American Indians -- Washington, Jefferson and Madison repeatedly spoke of God as "The Great Spirit" suggesting un-converted Natives worshipped the same God Jews and Christians did.

J. Adams may well have too; I haven't yet found the evidence. But I have found letters of his where he, I kid you not, terms Hinduism and Zeus worship as "Christian principles."

Of course, the FFs preferred Indians convert to "Christianity," but that was for utilitarian or civil reasons, not because they believed unconverted Natives worshipped a false God.

Mr. Carter:

Having just finished reading John Adams by David McCullough, I failed to note any commentary that would paint John Adams as anything but an orthodox Christian. Apparently, you are not of the same view. Can you help me with this issue?

Abigail Adams wrote to her son, John Quincy Adams, on May 5, 1816: "I acknowledge myself a unitarian—Believing that the Father alone, is the supreme God, and that Jesus Christ derived his Being, and all his powers and honors from the Father." "There is not any reasoning which can convince me, contrary to my senses, that three is one, and one three."

John Quincy Adams was, I believe, a Unitarian as well. If he was, Hinduism and Native American animism would not have been anathema to him.

Interesting article. I only suggest a couple copy edits for the sake of clarity...

missing word: "Jean Jacques Rousseau, who coined the [PHRASE] in his treatise, On the Social Contract"

wrong word: Christians "were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and [OF?] their masters"

@Charles H. Davis ***I failed to note any commentary that would paint John Adams as anything but an orthodox Christian. ***

Although I liked McCullough's book, his lack of examination of Adam's faith was disappointing. (Perhaps McCullough thinks that Unitarian is orthodox.)

Adams was raised a Congregationalist (at a time when they were becoming Unitarian) but later attended a Unitarian church (he's even buried at a Unitarian church). On the doctrine of the Trinity, he once wrote Jefferson,

"The human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted . . .. No Prophecies, no Miracles are necessary to prove this celestial communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three, nor can three be one . . . Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai . . . and there told that one was three and three one, we might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed."

Mr. Carter:

Glenn Beck is a Mormon, and although I don't pretend to fully understand Mormon doctrine, I do know they don't believe in the Trinity. I don't think Glenn Beck can use "Jesus" and "God" interchangeably as most Christians can. So he wasn't "forced to refer to a deity we could all claim to believe in" instead of referring to Jesus.

It may be politically incorrect to say this, but if we are going to divide up religions into those who believe in "our God" (Catholics, mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, and Jews) and other gods (Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists), Mormons belong in the latter group. On the other hand, I would say Muslims belong in the same group as Jews. ("They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God" [Nostra Aetate]).

I don't see why all people of faith who believe they share something in common can't come together to acknowledge it. You seem to be making a good case for the very strict separation of Church and state. If Christians must insist that God be referred to as Jesus, and Muslims must insist that God be referred to as Allah, and every other religion must emphasize its uniqueness, then it really seems better to me for a government of *all* the people not to get involved.

Charles,

There is a lot more from J. Adams. I don't know if he was drunk when writing his letters but he was, at times heterodox to the point of blasphemy when he rejected orthodox doctrines.

Here he is mocking Christ's Incarnation:

"An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity."

-- John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.

F. Scott Fitzgerald observed that "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. ... " Religion and the belief in an eternal being and an afterlife is a uniquely personal reality. Clearly there are many versions and many angles people take and have taken from the earliest days of human existence. This forms the basis for the Founding Fathers to establish our structure of government without "establishing" any particular religion or contributing to the establishment. Many Christians have become uncomfortable with this as our society has grown in population, become less rural and overwhelmed by technology. Thus the call by the author to advocate for a "religiously-informed public philosophy." But so often these days the form that takes is the righteous Christian advocating for his or her deeply held BELIEF in certain doctrines of morality such as abortion and homosexuality when the majority of the polity is not nearly so strict in their beliefs, Christian or otherwise. And we see so often these days this dynamic resulting even in violence and protest. The law IS the result of religiously-informed public policy and can be referred to as "public morality." It violates the personal morality of some, but should their personal morality be forced on the majority?

No matter what religion and morality are still uniquely personal items. To think otherwise is simply being overly self-conscious.

I think it's critical to distinguish between worshiping the same God and having the same conception (or theology) of God. I can have a high regard for John Adams without having the same idea about him that others do. As long as we're both talking about John Adams, rather than some talking about him and others talking about John Quincy Adams, our object of affection is the same even if our motivations are different because we have different ideas about the same person.

I can share Glenn Beck's regard for Jesus Christ even though the nature of our regard is essentially different. Beck's conception of Jesus as derivatively divine is different from my conception of Jesus' essential divinity. That doesn't make his conception more contemptible than that of a Jew or an Islamic or a Unitarian who merely regards Jesus as a prophet. On the contrary, I can see Beck's conception of Jesus as being at least marginally closer to mine. On the other hand, it may be that Beck's idea of the Father is further from mine than that of a Jew or an Islamic. (I don't know how thoroughgoing his Mormon theology is.)

In the same way, I can regard the faith of a monotheistic Hindu or Native American as closer to mine (and even express respect for their faith as an honest attempt to deal with the origin of their deepest religious experiences, both individual and collective) than that of a Wiccan or a Pagan or a polytheistic Hindu.

An interesting, informative post, although I am not sure that the distinction it draws between the positive dogmas of Civil and Public religion amount to any real difference, and I feel that ultimately that is because they both share the same, single negative dogma: the rejection of intolerance.

The rejection of intolerance has been the lingering kiss of death to Christianity. Christianity, to remain Christian, must always be intolerant; it must always proclaim the primacy of the Truth that it proclaims and it must be critical of any other claims to alternative “truths,” and the implications that follow from these alternative truth claims.

A couple of examples from Britain:
1) there is a movement that seeks to abolish the religiously segregated schooling of children because this, it is claimed by those belonging to the solely secular realm, breeds intolerance
2) the last Labour government were contemplating bringing anti-discrimination employment laws to bear against the Catholic church to force her to ordain Woman and practicing homosexuals.

In both cases advocates seriously believe that they are/were moving to eradicate intolerance and impose justice in their society, and in both cases these advocates were right, if one accepts their truth claims and the premises that unfold from them.
How is the Christian to respond to this?

I see no conflict -- our "civil religion" merely means that as a society we begin with the concept that there is such a being as the creator, the sustainer, the ultimate reality. It is then, as it always has been, the commission of the believer to teach the Gospel, so that man may come to know this being called God through Jesus Christ. You dismiss it, but I think the analogy to Mars Hill is apt here. When we speak of God in civil religion, we speak of that which Americans of all religions can agree on about His character -- that He wishes us to be just, to love one another, and that He has endowed us with certain unalienable rights, and that these rights, as they flow from a being greater than ourselves, are not subject to our momentary whims.

There is nothing blasphemous then, to say to our fellow citizens (in the context of evangelism) that this God of civil religion whom you acknowledge in the public square as the Creator of Men who endowed us with our rights, is the everlasting God who manifested Himself in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Civil religion is not a substitute for evangelism, but I believe it can be a useful precursor. Once you speak of a God, you must necessarily begin to wonder what He wants, how to talk to Him, and what your relationship is with Him. These are questions that prepare a man's heart to receive the Gospel.

If in the end he concludes that this God of civil religion refers to should be called Allah or Brahma or the deistic Clockmacker, well, he is no worse off spiritually than he would be believing that there is no God at all. As all men were created to worship, he was going to worship something one way or another, if he had not worshiped a deity it would have been money, sex, or some other material thing. An Atheist is no less an idolater than a Pagan.

Finally, regarding Glenn Beck's rally, I would point out that the prayers offered there were most often done in the name of Christ (without even the politically correct "with respect to people of all faiths, I'd like to personally offer this prayer in the name of Jesus...") and no prayers were offered in any other name. Even the Native American representative in his speech expressed his desire for all the Native peoples to come to know Christ. Not only because of this, as a Christian I welcome this call to turn back to God. It tills the ground for the seed of the Gospel, and moreover I believe a society which acknowledges God (however imperfectly) is a society where fewer will suffer misery and injustice, and more will be apt to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and liberate the enslaved.

Richard,

I don't know you or what your political leanings are; however, based solely on your comment above, you seem to have fallen into the trap, all too common among liberals, of believing that your position is simply and self-evidently the sane, rational, and morally neutral one, the inevitable one for enlightened right-thinking people. Any other position on, say, abortion is an "imposition" of morality.

The truth is that any law is an imposition of morality. Would you deny that most "pro-choice" adherents believe it morally wrong to deprive women of "reproductive choice"? Or at the very least that it is immoral base law on the belief that a fetus is a human being and therefore its right to life trumps a woman's right to choose? The triumph of your moral postion on abortion may well impose on my son the loss of a child and on me the loss of a grandchild since neither he nor I would have any say in the matter. How is that not an imposition of morality?

Are members of the religious right attempting to impose their religion when they oppose teaching evolution, or are they resisting the imposition of secularism on them? (I'm not a creationist, by the way, nor do I agree that evolution should not be taught in school. I simply use this example of of "imposition" of morality by law.)

You might argue that laws are about maintaining social order, not imposing morality, but that is itself a moral position. To base law on it is to impose amorality of the law on those who believe it should embody morality. There is no question of whether the law will impose morality, only of which morality it will impose. And your (?) liberal morality is no less a morality than is the Christian and no less imposed by liberal laws than Christian morality would be by laws inspired by Christianity.

Joe Carter writes:

"There is a vast and unbridgeable chasm between America’s civil religion and Christianity. If we claim that `under God' refers to the Christian conception of God, we are either being unduly intolerant or, more likely, simply kidding ourselves. Do we truly think that the Hindu, Wiccan, Muslim, or Buddhist American is claiming to be under the same deity as we are?"

This is true of all issues. Whether it is the use of the terms "fairness," "social justice," "due process," "human being," "representative democracy," "marriage," or "judicial review," you are going to find a wide range of opinions. Thus, it seems strange to me that you would select the employment of God in our public conversation as if it were uniquely difficult. In fact, compared to these other terms, there is probably greater agreement on God as the source of rights, in this sense: natural rights imply a natural law, and such a natural law requires a law giver, a perfectly just necessary agent whose jurisdiction is the universe. This is a belief that a large swath of people can embrace, from Methodists to Muslims. For most, if not all of them, this claim is far less controversial than their views on judicial review.

Of course, atheists as well as some Hindus and Buddhists would not find a place in their metaphysics for this notion, but that does not mean that they cannot benefit from the liberties and rights that flow from the embracing of this belief by the Republic. For that reason, they, especially the atheists, should be thankful that their theist friends believe that they are made in the image of God rather than just complicated mud shot through with electricity.

This, of course, gets cashed out in the public liturgy of what you call "civil religion," just as natural theology gets cashed out in a variety of ways in traditional faiths.

Thus, it is a mistake to treat what you call "civil religion" as a mere sociological phenomenon that cannot be defended by rational argument. This is why it was wrong to think that Rousseau is the best or last word on this matter. He is, of course, a nice resource if one thinks that theology, including natural theology, can never in principle be a deliverance of reason.

I tackle this question is some detail in a piece I published last year in the Santa Clara Law Review, “The Courts, Natural Rights, and Religious Claims as Knowledge," which you can find here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/SCLR.pdf

I will actually be speaking on this subject on Friday at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley. For more info, go here: http://www.dspt.edu/dspt/lib/dspt/_shared/pdfs/NewsEvents/Beckwith_lecture.pdf

However, on this question--the question of theism and the American Republic--a dif

The Muslim god cannot be lumped with the Jewish God just because they both worship "one" God. Allah, the muslim god, was originally 1 of 3 stone idols. The various villages were always fighting each other over which one of their "gods" was the most powerful. mohammed wanted to unite the arabs the way he saw that Jews were united under "one" God and the way Christians were united around Jesus, and destroyed the other 2 stone idols - leaving only one "god" - and forcing the arabs to worship the allah stone idol through violent force where necessary.

Allah (stone idol) resides at Mecca. That big stone idol they circle around on pilgrimages. It's why only muslims are allowed at Mecca. They don't society in general to know the truth about their "god."

Mr. Caerter, this was a long and interesting debate, but the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae has basically put an end to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitatis_Humanae

It is especially interesting that the freedom of religion was applied as a principle in the colony of Maryland founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore in 1634.

As I pointed out in my previous post, Beck is trying to do his best to oppose the evil forces of progressivism. He is trying his best to restore the religious foundation of America, in plain and simple terms all people can relate to. I never heard him refer to either Rousseau or the civil or public religion. These are deeply philosophical issues that have troubled intellectuals for the last 400 years or so, resulting in the foundation of modern countries like the United States of America, which do have a specific history and philosophy behind their foundation, and to which every patriot ought to pay allegiance the way they are. Perhaps Beck needs to go deeper in his understanding of the problem, and if somebody points this out to him, I am sure he will.

If you truly believe that Mr. Beck was referring to a "generic god of civil religion",
then you either haven't been listening to him, or have been and have still managed
to totally misunderstand him.

Furthermore, anyone who really doubts whether Jefferson's "Creator",
Washington's "Divine Providence", Adam's "one God", the "God" of the Gettysburg
Address, the "God" of the Pledge of Allegiance, or countless other God references in
U. S. history refer to any deity other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is
quite possibly delusional. And has missed a central fact of this nation's history. The
founders explicitly rejected Rousseau's ideas concerning a "born good" human being corrupted by church and state. The overwhelming majority of their "first principles"
come directly from Judeo-Christian (often explicity Christian) understanding. The
whole discussion about a civil religion, while interesting, is a distraction.

Finally, and if I am wrong about this I sincerely apologize, I sense a certain
condescension towards Mr. Beck. I find it unworthy of Mr. Carter (whose work I
have often admired) and First Things.

Fred:

Obviously the law imposes morality. I thought I pointed that out. The "public morality" involved in the criminal code making murder, theft, fraud, littering, etc., etc. are based upon legislatures (folks from differing points of view) debating, obtaining more information, then voting on the passage of the law which can impose penalties such as imprisonment (police power of the state). But that process took place and has taken place in more sensitive areas such as abortion and homosexuality and the result is there for you to see. In making points like this you are labeling me "liberal" and using a ridiculous analogy regarding your extended family. I understand you feel strongly about your moral convictions and I have friends that would be there with you. Then you slide into some broad notion about what "Christian" morality is, or should be. Most of those legislators that created the current status of the law in America were and are Christians. What is it about this situation that you are missing? I am all in favor of conservative Christians trying their level best to CHANGE the law, particularly with respect to abortion. But it would help if you start from the base of an understanding of reality.

We are a nation of laws, not of any particular imagining of who God is (remember that Kierkegaard rightly claimed that he looked out over Christendom and saw no Christians). There is no question that America's overwhelming Judaic-Christian inheritance, under the rule (law) of the separation of church and state as the best way to promote freedom of religion, had profoundly affected, and continues to affect, the development of the best democracy the world has ever known, and why so much of the new barbarism can be directly tied to the suppression of Judaic-Christian principles that are, after all, not founded in reason, but in the intellect as it was long ago understood: using all our faculties, even the transcendent/gift faculty of faith (producing what is often called wisdom), to arrive at the best possible way to relate to each other as a nation of peoples determined to establish the highest expression of freedom the world has ever known, called democracy.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and many others were deists, and so strictly speaking were not Jews or Christians, but they could clearly see the powerful mechanisms at play in faith-based religions, especially Judaism and Christianity (although Eastern transcendental religions also played a major role in discerning what freedom is for America) as long as those religions were not allowed to impose anything on anyone, that their contribution to the secular realm was openly invited, and obviously encouraged.

In other words, the true heart of what American is can be discovered in a phrase attributed to James Joyce when asked what Catholicism is: "Here comes everybody!" What can be more universal than a Christianity that can acknowledge that even atheists can be anonymous Christians? In other words, the true Christian will look to how the Holy Spirit has been gifted to every person, and how the Holy Spirit moves in every person, including atheists (a rabbi once observed that some of the most religious persons he had ever met where atheists because they had already rejected a plethora of false images of God). In other words, America is the place where God is universally invited to help us in continuing to establish the greatest democracy the world has ever known.

"The Muslim god cannot be lumped with the Jewish God just because they both worship 'one' God.'

That's what you say. One could also say the Jewish God cannot be lumped in with the Christian God because Christians worship a Triune God and Jews don't.

However, John Adams lumped all three together.


"It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world."

– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818

Very important questions, and a very important discussion. As a current undergrad, I've studied some of these questions, and hope to study them much more in the future. William Cavanaugh's book Theopolitical Imagination explores them at some length.

I think we can be good Christians and still be good Americans. We just can't let ourselves be worshipping America, or the framers, as deities, or forget that they are human, however great their work on Earth was. Whether or not we support a particular war is a different issue, of course, but I do think a war can be supported without engaging in worship of the state.

I think it is useful to distinguish between state religion and religion of the state. The former makes some already existing religion (such as Christianity) the official state religion: it establishes a church. Religion of the state, by contrast, involves creating a new religion fundamentally concerned with worshipping the state.

Insofar as Rousseau's civil religion is a religion of the state, it must be avoided. However, I do not think that the various elements you cite -'under God' in the Pledge, 'In God We Trust' on money, etc- count as "civil religion" and must therefore be avoided. I would consider them forms of public religion, as Novak understands it. The Constitution, of course, does refer to the "Year of Our Lord," which obviously refers to Jesus. The God that we are talking about may be said by the courts to be "ceremonial deism" but the meaning of "Under God" is less rooted in court rulings and more rooted in the cultural traditions of the country, which understand this to refer to the God of Abraham. I am not entirely clear if you would prefer that these things be found unconstitutional, or be abandoned some other way? Certainly, we cannot think that by having them in our public life we have somehow completed our duties as Christians. But keeping them put seems like a good idea to me.

Furthermore, I agree with Dr. Beckwith, in that many of the terms we use in this discussion can mean very different things. Novak's description of "public religion" mentions the relation between "religion and republican virtues." Now, 'religion' is arguably more vague than "God," because the latter term is monotheistic while not all religions are. So doesn't Novak's definition -which you embrace- violate your own standard by not specifying which religion he is talking about? He's certainly not talking about the relationship between Islam and republican virtue, I assume.

Anyway, I do not think that most Americans' Christianity "ends" with the state, or is somehow completed by the state. On the contrary, there is a healthy skepticism of the state among many Christians (not a loathing, mind you, but a skepticism). You are right to remind us that our mission as Christians involves much more than 'under God' in the Pledge, but it can still involve that, I think.

@Fr. Larry Gearhart ***I think it's critical to distinguish between worshiping the same God and having the same conception (or theology) of God. I can have a high regard for John Adams without having the same idea about him that others do. As long as we're both talking about John Adams, rather than some talking about him and others talking about John Quincy Adams, our object of affection is the same even if our motivations are different because we have different ideas about the same person.***

This is a great point and I'm glad you bring this up. I completely agree with what you are saying, but don't think we end up at the same place. To me some conceptions about a person are intrinsic to who the person is.

Say that we have two people who are talking about John Adams, one that thinks he was the 14th president of the United States and one that thinks he was an alien from the planet Xenu. While both of them have misconceptions about Adams, the second has a misconception that radically misses who Adams was.

***In the same way, I can regard the faith of a monotheistic Hindu or Native American as closer to mine . . . than that of a Wiccan or a Pagan or a polytheistic Hindu.***

I can too. But that doesn't mean that we are worshipping the "same" God. Now it may be what we are trying to say is that they are actually worshipping Jesus but are too ignorant to know that fact. My view is that we should be more generous, take them at their word, and simply admit that we don't just have different conceptions about God but that we aree worshipping different entities.

@Joshua ***You dismiss it, but I think the analogy to Mars Hill is apt here. When we speak of God in civil religion, we speak of that which Americans of all religions can agree on about His character -- that He wishes us to be just, to love one another, and that He has endowed us with certain unalienable rights, and that these rights, as they flow from a being greater than ourselves, are not subject to our momentary whims.***

The problem is that generic use of the term "God"creates some semantic confusion. In logic, the law of identity states that an object is the same as itself: A A. For Christians, Jesus God, so we can substitute the terms and mean the same thing. Now let's do that and see how it affects your statement:

{When we speak of Jesus in civil religion, we speak of that which Americans of all religions can agree on about Jesus' character -- that Jesus wishes us to be just, to love one another, and that Jesus has endowed us with certain unalienable rights . . .}

This is what Chrisitans *mean* but this is not what we say because this is *exactly* what people from other religions are rejecting. That is why it makes no sense to say that we are referring to the "same" God since the referrent is the point of disagreement.

That is where civil religion comes in. For us all to get on the same page and talk about the same referent we have to stop talking about the God we really believe in and refer to a generic deistic entity. But this, as I said in my article, Christians should not do.

***If in the end he concludes that this God of civil religion refers to should be called Allah or Brahma or the deistic Clockmacker, well, he is no worse off spiritually than he would be believing that there is no God at all.***

They are not, but we are. My belief is that Christians should, as often as possible, talk about *Jesus* in the public square. By doing so, it reminds us that our God is a real person and cannot be reduced to a common denominator being.

***and no prayers were offered in any other name.***

There was at least one prayer where the person repeatedly referred to "gods" rather than God.

@Francis Beckwith ***Whether it is the use of the terms "fairness," "social justice," "due process," "human being," "representative democracy," "marriage," or "judicial review," you are going to find a wide range of opinions. Thus, it seems strange to me that you would select the employment of God in our public conversation as if it were uniquely difficult.***

The reason is because all of those other nouns refer to abstract concepts, while God is the naem of a specific, concrete Being.

***there is probably greater agreement on God as the source of rights***

I agree. The problem is that non-Christians really don't undertand who the source of those rights are. If we tell, them that the source is Jesus, they'll reject that. But that is the correct answer.

***For that reason, they, especially the atheists, should be thankful that their theist friends believe that they are made in the image of God rather than just complicated mud shot through with electricity.***

Because of considerations of length, I didn’t get to flesh out what I meant by public religion. My point is certainly not that we should not refer to God in the public square. My contention is merely that we should not try to agree on a Common Demoninator God (which is merely a deistic construction that doesn't really exists) but simply say, "I believe that Christ/Allah/Vishnu is the source of morality, etc."

@Peter H. ***He is trying his best to restore the religious foundation of America, in plain and simple terms all people can relate to.***

But that is part of the problem. If the "religious foundation" of America is not Christian than Christians should have nothing to do with it, since it would be a form of idolotry. And if what Beck is trying to do is restore Christianity then he can't do that as a Mormon since their conception is so radically different than orthodoxy.

As I've said before, my main problem is not so much with Beck. He is a Mormon, so for him America and his religion are so entwined that it is difficult to separate them. Christians, however, must put their faith first and the country (at best) second. We can't water down our faith just because doing so might be useful to stop progressives.

@D.L. Martine ***If you truly believe that Mr. Beck was referring to a "generic god of civil religion", then you either haven't been listening to him, or have been and have still managed to totally misunderstand him.***

Here is a direct quote:

[Beck: Because honestly right now, one part of culture that I am doing a lot of is faith. But general faith. We have got to get back to our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, whatever it is, as long as it's not telling you to blow things up, get back to God and get back to the founding principles.]

Is Beck referring to Christ? Is he calling people to get back to their synagogues and mosques and learn about Jesus?

*** Furthermore, anyone who really doubts whether Jefferson's "Creator",
Washington's "Divine Providence", Adam's "one God", the "God" of the Gettysburg
Address, the "God" of the Pledge of Allegiance, or countless other God references in
U. S. history refer to any deity other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is
quite possibly delusional.***

Do you believe, as the Bible states, that Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? That is a claim that would be denied by Jefferson, Washington, and Adams (and likely Lincoln too).

***The overwhelming majority of their "first principles" come directly from Judeo-Christian (often explicity Christian) understanding. The whole discussion about a civil religion, while interesting, is a distraction.***

Many of the Founders championed Christian principles because they were useful, not because they believed that they truly came from the one true God.

*** I sense a certain condescension towards Mr. Beck.***

It's no secret that I do not respect Beck. I think he is a shallow, shameful, undereducated opportunist. I think he does a pound of damage for every ounce of good that he does.

@ John Rowe - It appears to me you have no concept of the difference. You have to be familiar with all of it, to understand where each came from and where the differences are.

Christians accept the God of the Jews as the true God, from reading the history of the Jews (the Old Testament). Where Christians start to differ is we believe Jesus is the Christ/Savior, and Jews are still waiting for the Christ/Savior.

Diane,

I am well familiar with the difference. But if Jews reject that Christ is 2nd person in the Trinity, arguably they don't worship the same God you do. "Jehovah" either is Triune or He is not.

"Glenn Beck is a Mormon, and although I don't pretend to fully understand Mormon doctrine, I do know they don't believe in the Trinity. I don't think Glenn Beck can use "Jesus" and "God" interchangeably as most Christians can. So he wasn't "forced to refer to a deity we could all claim to believe in" instead of referring to Jesus."

Actually, Mormons do believe that Jesus is God and routinely use "Jesus" and "God" interchangeably, just as Catholics and Protestants do. We do believe that Jesus is fully divine. Jesus created the earth, spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, and will return in glory to judge all mankind.

We usually refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as the "Godhead" rather than the "Trinity" to emphasize the distinction between the three Persons. In that sense our concept of God is different from that of other Christians.

Mormon teachings are frequently misrepresented and summaries of Mormon doctrine that come from hostile sources should be treated with skepticism.

@John Rowe - "But if Jews reject that Christ is 2nd person in the Trinity, arguably they don't worship the same God you do."

Jews don't believe in the trinity at all - and even a lot of Christians are confused about what to think in that area - but one thing we DO all agree on is that the God of the Jews is the Father of us all.

It seems to me that you are being unduly obstuse about this. You say you undestand the difference, but I'm not sure you do.

Well Richard, it does seem that I misunderstood you. The last point you made in your initial comment did sound to me very much like an attitude, if not always an argument, that I have frequently encountered and that I find extremely irksome. I find it irksome because it allows the person deploying it to simply dismiss his opponent's argument rather than confront it. It is apparently not your attitude or argument. I regret the misunderstanding.

If I misunderstood you, it also seems you have more than returned the favor. First, my "ridiculous analogy" is neither. It is a concrete example of the kind of thing that can, and I'm sure often does, happen as a consequence of the liberal imposition of morality and refutes the idea that the liberal position is the default rational position. I quite fail to see anything ridiculous about it.

Second, I made no claims whatsoever about what Christian morality is or should be. I made only the claim, with which your response to my comment indicates you agree, that working to overturn the legality of abortion and prevent that of gay marriage constitutes no more of an imposition of morality than the reverse. The evolution example I used is one that was actually thrown in my face by a liberal colleague as proof of the existence of theocrats in America. I argued against that notion by pointing out that the evolution opponents are wrong, in my view, but are not in any way theocrats. They are not attempting to impose their religion on anyone but are resisting what they see as the imposition of an alien belief system on them. I also quite fail to see the ridiculousness of that argument. Perhaps both of us should be less prickly and prone to snark.

@George ***Actually, Mormons do believe that Jesus is God and routinely use "Jesus" and "God" interchangeably, just as Catholics and Protestants do.***

Umm, well, not exactly as Catholics and Protestants do. When Mormons say use God interchangeably it is because they believe he is one of three different gods. When Catholics and Protestant use the term the are referring to only one being. The difference between monotheism and tritheism is rather significant.

@Dianne *** but one thing we DO all agree on is that the God of the Jews is the Father of us all.***

I think Jon is right on this point. We don’t all agree that the "God of the Jews is the Father of us all." Unless we agree with the Mormons about tritheism, we cannot say that a person can worship the Father and not be worshipping Christ. Jesus made that point very clear—which is why they crucified him.

What is missing from Joe's argument and I think he ought to deal with is the idea of philosophical theism, i.e. Aristotle's unmoved mover, the "God" that Cicero, Seneca, Kant et al referred to. See Wikipedia or any dictionary of philosophy on "Philosophical theism". What is known about the "God of the Philosophers," as Pascal put it, is only that which can be derived from reason alone. The God of the Philosophers is something different religious traditions can agree on because it does not depend on revelation. Yet it is also a concept that Christians can embrace without betraying their faith (see Aquinas). Philosophical claims about Who the God of the Philosophers is do not conflict with Christian doctrine, because they are not religious claims. The God of the Philosophers is also quite different from the God of Deism, who wound up the clock and walked away. That Deist belief cannot rest on philosophical reasoning alone, but is in fact a religious belief. So I think Joe is wrong to call the God of the Declaration or the God of the Pledge part of a "civic religion" -- both documents are statements of political philosophy and the references to God within them are too. That philosophy is not one Christians should reject any more than they should reject philosophical concepts like natural law that accord with their religious beliefs.

Regarding Nature's God, the God with the capital G is the Judeo-Christian God. Our Founding Fathers referred to the Capital G God, not a pagan god.

Fred:
You make an attempt to engage in a rational dialogue which is something I don't always see here as many are mired only in doctrine and won't move out of that to discuss reality. Sort of like the doctrinal battles that led to schisms in the old world. Your example about the decision making leading to the deprivation of a child/grandchild suggests to me that you and your son should have a say in whether a woman keeps her child, or no. Now I am not an expert on the legal aspects of this but it is an issue that varies from state to state. And traditionally conservatives have argued that states SHOULD be where issues like this should be decided.

Taking up the religiously-informed public philosophy which forms the basis of the opinion piece I presuppose that means in a practical sense the good Christian advocates for fathers to be part of the decision. Behind that kind of idea, of course, is ultimately the elimination of abortion altogether. I tend to want that outcome myself although there are two thoughts in my head that don't allow me to go as far as you might in advocating our religiously-informed public philosophy. First, bishops such as Chaput won't even allow the termination of a pregnancy early on for all manner of health issues. Second, my common sense tells me that although the woman most often consents to the intercourse, once she becomes pregnant it is her body, her giving birth and mostly her job the rear the young. The law won't give custody of a new born to a father unless the most extreme situation occurs where the mother would be a danger to the child. Bottom line, the woman has the primary role here and I for one am loathe to favor the law telling her what to do in the early stage.

So often when this broader subject comes up so many conservatives, so frustrated by years of futilely working to change Roe v. Wade, come to the point where they just want to overthrow the government. This is the single issue, religiously-informed public philosophy, that literally could lead to the severe deterioration of this nation. That is, of course, something that has already begun. On both sides.

@ER *** What is known about the "God of the Philosophers," as Pascal put it, is only that which can be derived from reason alone.***

Pascal referred to the "God of the Philosophers" to distinguish the real living God from the god of philosophical speculation. ("God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars…")

*** The God of the Philosophers is something different religious traditions can agree on because it does not depend on revelation.***

Other traditions may be able to agree on it, but I do not believe Christians can do so. The "God of the Philosophers" either *is* Jesus Christ or it is a being that does not exist.

We have both general revelation (mediate and immediate) and special revelation. While it is true that we can agree on the general revelation aspects, when we disagree on special revelation it becomes moot. If you reject Christ you have rejected God. There's no way around that. Whatever being that the other traditions are talking about, it ain't the true God.

Of course this does not mean that we can't agree to disagree, admit that we are all worshipping different Gods (only one that exists), and get down to the business of figuring out what we can agree on.

@N.D. *** Regarding Nature's God, the God with the capital G is the Judeo-Christian God. Our Founding Fathers referred to the Capital G God, not a pagan god.***

Do see why this is not true, substitute "Jesus" for "God." Many of the Founding Fathers denied the divinity of Jesus, so they could not be talking about the Christian God.

@Joe:

I think you may have misunderstood my point. Aquinas makes a cosmological argument (based in part on Aristotle) that there is an Uncaused or First Cause, which he refers to as "God." Reaching that philosophical conclusion--a conclusion that can also be reached by non-Christians (cf. the "kalam" argument, or Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and Kant)--does not make Aquinas any less Christian. He happens to also believe, based on revelation, that the First Cause is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I am not sure why you see a conflict between the two modes of thinking. Of course no Christian will be *satisfied* with the God of the Philosophers. But it is wrong, and contradicts centuries of Christian and philosophical thought (including Pascal's) to say that making the cosmological argument in philosophy contradicts Christian revelation. In fact, Christian doctrine says that reason and revelation go hand in hand.

A brief summary of Aquinas's cosmological arguments for the existence of God can be found here: http://www.quodlibet.net/aqu5ways.shtml. Note that Aquinas held that God's existence was "self-evident" -- an idea that pops up in the Declaration of Independence.

@ER ***Aquinas makes a cosmological argument (based in part on Aristotle) that there is an Uncaused or First Cause, which he refers to as "God." Reaching that philosophical conclusion--a conclusion that can also be reached by non-Christians (cf. the "kalam" argument, or Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and Kant)--does not make Aquinas any less Christian.***

I agree. There are a number of things that a generic God of the Philosophers concept can do. Explaining the the necessity of a First Cause is one of them.

But to get such things as Lockean natural rights requires a personal being who can expresse intentionality. That is work that is far beyond the capabilities of the GoP. That is why Deism is the minimum requirement for our style of government. An Aristotelian-type Prime Mover concept—which is about as far as the GoP concept can take us—is too thin to do work of underpinning a Republic.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that he GoP doesn't exist; when the philosophers talk about such a being they are talking about Jesus. We're back to the same issue I mentioned earlier: we either say that we (Christians and other faiths) are talking about different gods or we confess that what we mean is that they are talking about Jesus and are just too dense to understand that point.

Jesus is God, so one would not be "substituting" Jesus for God. All Christians recognize that Jesus is God. ( the capital G God)

@N.D. ***All Christians recognize that Jesus is God. ( the capital G God) ***

Right. So how do you square that with your previous statement that "Our Founding Fathers referred to the Capital G God, not a pagan god." Since many of them denied that Jesus is God, who were they referring to?

It should be obvious to all Christians that God is a "3 in 1" God. This is Catholic teaching, no doubt about it, but it is also truth as far as I am concerned.
Jesus is the savior and son of God, so he is God as a man. The Holy Spirit is God unseen to all of us. Do not deny it. It is God speaking to you. Therefore, "3 in 1". It is not that complicated.

Mr. Carter,


I think this article is well written and accurately argued. You certainly have a point that the God of enlightenment civil religion has dominated the discourse of American Relgion for arguably as long as such discourse has continued. Moreover, there are clear points where one can firmly distinguish between this non-descript god of sentiments from the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus Christ, the incarnate word.

However, how do you deal with the fact that within the context of a pluralistic, multi-confessional nation that arises from Judeo-Christian conviction, that speaking of this 'god' of civil religion his perhaps the only way one can meaningfully speak of God within the American public square. In other words, what is the alternative?

Joe,

I don't think your claim of distinction is valid in every case. if I sat down with a modern Hindu and described God as the all powerful creator of all that exists, he would probably say that he refers to this being as Brahman. If I did the same with an Islamic, that person would most likely declare that I am referring to Allah. What makes this conversation begin to be productive is that we all agree there is only one creator of all things. If we are inclined to grant reasonableness to each others' belief we may also be inclined to say, by mutual agreement, that we are referring to the same being by different names.

We may disagree on details of theology, but agree on characteristics that only God can possess. This is the opposite of using the same name to refer to distinct beings, as in your example of the alien John Adams.

Where we generally run into trouble in religious discussions is in our disparate revelations, especially when those revelations make specific claims that are incompatible with each other. In areas like that, we are compelled to admit that we will continue to disagree, yet, perhaps, agree to cooperate on the basis of what we have in common and compete with each other where we do not.

We call the combination of cooperation and competition in the civil arena "mutual tolerance" to the extent that we can agree that what the other person is teaching is not morally heretical and does not have morally heretical implications.

On that basis we can even pray together and cooperate with each other in the public arena. This is how the Vatican and Islamic countries can make common cause opposing much of the radical agenda of the UNFPA, UNESCO, etc.

@Joe: I think the God of the Philosophers is a lot "thicker" concept than you describe it as. Any number of philosophers have treated the concept -- again, God insofar as God can be known by reason alone -- as being an ample foundation for a concept of rights that preexist human compacts. In their view, the God of the Philosophers is more than thick enough to support an idea of natural right.

Cicero, for example, says:

True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate
nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing to-day, and another to-morrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author, its promulgator, its enforcer. And he who does not obey it flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man.

Note that Cicero wrote this before Christ. Aquinas also claims that he can derive natural law concepts from that which we know of God without recourse to revelation. And of course the Declaration's argument is based entirely on the idea set forth above that natural law trumps positive law.

I am also not sure why you think that Deism is required to make this point, since the ancient philosophers that posited these ideas were dead long before Deism had ever been thought of. Deism was a bit of a flash in the pan religiously speaking, but the philosophical concept of rights coming from the Creator and being therefore inalienable was around for a long time before (and after) Deism existed.

I also think you are creating a false opposition between philosophy and religion. Using philosophical reasoning to come to conclusions about God--conclusions that non-Christians can agree with--does not conflict with Christian beliefs. Again, that approach implies that Aquinas (and any number of other Christian theologians, incl. say John Finnis) wasn't Christian, which doesn't make any sense. Nor does reasoning in this way mean that Christians cannot urge non-Christians to consider Christ.

What it does mean is that Christians and non-Christians, and even the government, can agree about some aspects of God's nature on the basis of reason alone. That does not mean that a Christian can't at the very same time say that the Islamic or Hindu concept of God is completely wrong and a departure from reality. If we all agree, based on reason alone, that God created the world, that doesn't make us any less in disagreement about who God is. Philosophic agreement does not imply religious relativism.

@ER I should have pointed out earlier that I do not believe the “God of the Philosophers” is a useful concept since the philosophers we would refer to have differing—at at times contradictory—conceptions of God.

Cicero, for example, was a monist who believed in a form of panpsychism. (“So we see that the parts of the world (for there is nothing in the world which is not a part of the universe as a whole) have sense and reason.”) That’s not at all similar to what Aquinas believed.

***but the philosophical concept of rights coming from the Creator and being therefore inalienable was around for a long time before (and after) Deism existed.***


I think this is where the slippery use of terms comes in again. The concept of natural rights was first posited (outside of Judaism) by the Stoics who believed, like Cicero, that the universe itself was identical with God. They don’t believe it came *from* a Creator but that it came from a self-creating entity—the universe.

To say that our conception of a Creator is the same as the Stoics is an equivocation of terms. We're talking about an independently existing being and they are referring to what is intrinsic to the universe itself. To call both "God" and say that we are coming to some sort of agreement about what God is doesn't appear to do much but muddy the waters.

***Using philosophical reasoning to come to conclusions about God--conclusions that non-Christians can agree with--does not conflict with Christian beliefs.***

I completely agree. (I’m not sure where I implied otherwise.) But we can both agree that an animal has hooves, a mane, and eats grass and be talking about completely different animals. You could be drawing conclusions about a horse while I’m drawing conclusions about a unicorn. But one exists and the other does not. If you point to a horse and I say, “No, that’s not what I’m talking about” then we are simply not talking about the same thing, no matter how many similarities we can agree on.

***If we all agree, based on reason alone, that God created the world, that doesn't make us any less in disagreement about who God is.***

My point is not that we are doing something illicit, but that we are doing something trivial. Just because we can agree that our Gods share certain similarities does not mean that we are talking about the same God. If we are not talking about the same God then why does it really matter if we agree on philosophical attributes?

Natural rights can only be derived from a God that actually exists. If we are saying that we can't figure out which God it is that really exists but that we are in agreement that he must have quality X, then I'm not sure we're saying anything important. Who would find that to be a convincing basis for a legal and political system?

"... Deism is required to make this point, since the ancient philosophers that posited these ideas were dead long before Deism had ever been thought of. Deism was a bit of a flash in the pan religiously speaking, but the philosophical concept of rights coming from the Creator and being therefore inalienable was around for a long time before (and after) Deism existed."

I've seen this claim and I'm not so sure. "Deism" as a self understood religious theology may well be a "flash in the pan." But Deism (or some kind of Deism) as a default state of mind of nominal Christians, Jews, Muslims and other monotheists may well be the dominant creed, not just today but of other eras.

What do you call someone who thinks himself some kind of "Christian," believes in God, but is not so sure on matters like Trinity, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible and XYZ official doctrine that his church teaches?

Likewise in the rest of the world, someone like Saddam Hussein who, I don't doubt believed in God and considered himself some kind of Muslim didn't seem to have any religious qualms about getting drunk, fornicating, other folks converting to Christianity. As far as I can tell he was a Muslim-Deist.

Although apparently out of fashion today, and if you have a burning interest in Church and State, read John Courtney Murray (Jesuit priest), "We Hold These Truths". Written in the early Sixties, mostly before Vatican II, this series of articles had some influence on the religious liberties position of the Catholic Church in those times. It is interesting to see how Murray, who was percieved as a liberal at the time, comes across as a conservative today.

The whole US culture has lurched to the left over the past 40-50 years. As the reality of facism and communism has become a more distant memory?

@Joe: I concede that philosophic theism might be trivial from the point of view of persuading someone of the truth of the Gospel, since faith must come from both reason and revelation. That said, I think a philosophical discussion of this sort can often be a useful way to clear out the underbrush of unexamined materialistic determinism buttressed by a misunderstanding of what the scientific method can and can't do. Philosophical theism is a rebuttal to the scientistic (not scientific) worldview that God has in some undefined way been disproved by science. (See Hawking's recent book.) The problem with scientists (and many Christians) is that they ignore the role of philosophy and pretend that there is nothing in between science and religion; this is based mostly on ignorance of the Western philosophical tradition. If scientists realized that much of their worldview (the conclusions that can't be reached using the scientific method) were in fact philosophical rather than scientific, they might exercise a little less arrogance when it comes to questions like embryonic stem cell research, since they have no particular claim to be experts in ethics or philosophy than the next person. But Christians rarely call scientists out on their unwitting philosophic assumptions about epistemology etc. because Christians are busy making their own unwitting philosophic assumptions. It seems likely that the cause of the Gospel would be helped mightily if Christians tried to use philosophic reasoning both in public debate and in interpersonal discussions about the Gospel and different worldviews. In my experience, most materialistic determinists have completely unexamined philosophic views and it is often useful to upend those assumptions first in any discussion of worldviews.

When it comes to political philosophy as opposed to sharing the Gospel, agreement among citizens about the God of the Philosophers is not at all trivial. In that arena, it could hardly be more consequential. The difference is the one between an idea of rights that precede the State and rights that come from the State. If our government takes the official position--as it does in the Declaration of Independence--that rights come from a Source higher than the State, there is an important check on government abuse of power. (E.g. it was the justification for why the colonists could rebel.) If rights are given by the State, or rights are socially constructed, then they aren't inalienable. If you want to see the problems that come with a failure to adopt a theistic approach, look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which famously does not say *why* all of these rights it declares happen to be there. It is much easier to ignore.

By contrast, an official government political philosophy that includes philosophical theism puts the individual into a horizontal relationship with the State rather than a vertical one. Simply put, if we are not under God, we will be under the State. That may happen in an overt way--the Soviets made very clear that all rights came from the State and could be taken away by the State--but the greater danger for us today is creeping statism of the variety pushed by the Progressives back in the early 20th century. Here is a classic statement of this idea:

Other leading progressives such as Frank J. Goodnow, the president of Johns Hopkins University, noted approvingly (in a 1916 lecture) that in Europe, unlike in America, the rights an individual possesses "are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action."

Philosophical theism and its application to political philosophy in the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance are thus important bulwarks against the Statist approach to rights. Preserving that bulwark is especially important for religious freedom, since the Statist approach to religious freedom is one of mere tolerance and then only insofar as it remains convenient. The viewpoint of philosophical theism, however, roots religious freedom in the God-given dignity of every person. The State must do more than merely tolerate. Without philosophical theism you won't get there, and an important underpinning of the right to share the Gospel will be undermined.

@Jon Rowe: My point regarding Deism is that it is a fairly precisely defined term and ends up being confusing if you try to equate what the Founders believed with how someone today believes. There are in fact "Modern Deists" today who have a fairly specific belief system that would not cover all of the folks you describe above. Another example of how the term is used far too loosely is the legal concept of "ceremonial deism," which has nothing at all to do with the concept of Deism, though I am sure that Yale Law School Dean Rostow knew precisely the confusion he would engender when he coined the term back in the 60s.

So if you are looking for a broader term, rather than use one that has already been taken, you could use something like "shallow theists" or "semi-agnostic theists" -- people who believe in "God," even a God who intervenes and they can pray to, but want to remain agnostic as to the details of say, ethics.

What a great discussion.

@Joe: Thanks for engaging the comment-thread. It's as if the lecturer sticks around for a nice long Q&A discussion. Creates quality in abundance, for an already good essay.

@ER: As well, thank you for the high-quality input.

The Bible, and the traditions of understanding and emphasis, is paramount to the Christian understanding of revelation of God.

The Bible speaks of the aspect of God as creator. God of the Philosophers also, and primarily, speaks of God's-creator-aspect. In this sense, they are connected. Works of reason and philosophy that develop and/or "fortify" the concept of a creator-God, would seem to me to harmonize with the Christian understanding of God's-creator-aspect.

I realize that the question arises; "which philosopher and subsequent philosophy am I talking about?" Joe already hit this.

I'm just bringing up the more general (and probably obvious to you) point that the specific-revelation we Christians are running with, does have a "pin" to any "talk" or reasoning associated to a creator God. In fact, it is probably the specific-revelation recorded in the Bible, that gives much meaning and heft, to any "philosophical only" developments.

Part of "what we do" as Christians is connect some pretty outrageous claims of Christianity to a physical world.

As well, there's a mysterious, and continuous work of the Holy Spirit in us. We move, act, speak, and proclaim from thus. Albeit imperfectly, but we engage God as such, none-the-less. Always developing always maturing.

Job, Chapter 41, God speaking of the great creature Leviathan, and Himself:
God wants us to know this about Him, and I think it's wonderful prose.

8 If you lay a hand on him,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!

9 Any hope of subduing him is false;
the mere sight of him is overpowering.

10 No one is fierce enough to rouse him.
Who then is able to stand against me?

11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.

In both cases advocates seriously believe that they are/were moving to eradicate intolerance and impose justice in their society, and in both cases these advocates were right, if one accepts their truth claims and the premises that unfold from them. The Muslim god cannot be lumped with the Jewish God just because they both worship "one" God. Allah, the muslim god, was originally 1 of 3 stone idols. The various villages were always fighting each other over which one of their "gods" was the most powerful. mohammed wanted to unite the arabs the way he saw that Jews were united under "one" God and the way Christians were united around Jesus, and destroyed the other 2 stone idols - leaving only one "god" - and forcing the arabs to worship the allah stone idol through violent force where necessary.

I will actually be speaking on this subject on Friday at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley. For more info, go here: http://www.dspt.edu/dspt/lib/dspt/_shared/pdfs/NewsEvents/Beckwith_lecture.pdf I am also not sure why you think that Deism is required to make this point, since the ancient philosophers that posited these ideas were dead long before Deism had ever been thought of. Deism was a bit of a flash in the pan religiously speaking, but the philosophical concept of rights coming from the Creator and being therefore inalienable was around for a long time before (and after) Deism existed.