"It’s as if progressives feel that if they can prove that the Founders were Deists rather than serious Christians, then that will strengthen the case for separation of church and state. That doesn’t follow either."

The argument put forth about the Founders being Deists is a refutation of the counter-argument made by evangelicals that all the founders had some form of strong dogmatic belief in Christ. Progressives recognize fully well the diversity of religious belief during the colonial and revolutionary periods and the attempt by the Founders to facilitate that diversity by separating the state from any religion's dogma. They valued the diversity of religious belief as an essential part of liberty for all individuals.

It's not that "proving" some Founders were Deists will reinforce the case for separation of church and state. It's that for religious liberty to mean anything, there must be a separation. Otherwise, somebody's liberties are and will be infringed, as was the case with English rule. It is the evangelicals who forget this lesson and want to rewrite history to declare the Founders to have ideas similar to their own. Pointing out that some of the Founders were Deists is simply a refutation of that stance.

The other commenters are correct. You make a generalization fallacy. It probably comes from assuming that the religious framing of the argument by evangelicals is valid. It isn't.

Posted at March 12, 2008 12:20 PM in response to Militant Unitarians