Religion and Politics: Inherently Intertwined

I found this week’s readings to be particularly interesting, as they expand upon the idea of accepting religion and science to be true. One must also realize that when discussing religion, many other themes are inherently tied to the discussion. These most often are (and as seen in the readings), toleration of other schools of thought, the relationship to government, and how one’s personal beliefs affects their participation as a citizen in the political realm.

John Locke describes how a liberal-democratic society (such as America), must be willing to tolerate and accept opposing views of religion, for if we don’t, then our society becomes one that stunts one’s personal freedom and that could even lead to a tyrannical government. He relates his ideas to that of Christianity, as it was the prevailing religion at the time, and states that the doctrine of Christianity and the toleration of other religions are compatible. His argument is also of the utmost importance as Locke is recognized as one of the earliest philosophers to write on the idea of the separation of church and state within a democratic society.

Locke’s initial writings relate well to some of the other philosophers that we have read this week, such as Voltaire and Jefferson. For example, Voltaire writes “The institution of religion exists only to keep mankind in order, and to make men merit the goodness of God by their virtue” (115). He also writes that this virtue “supposes liberty,” such that if religion is only in place to allow citizens to pursue a certain moral code that in turn keeps them acting virtuously, then all citizens must also have an inherently given ability to live freely from intrusion of government or from other religions.

Jefferson further expands upon this idea, in that this freedom of religion and intrusion from outside sources can only be granted if the citizenry acts reasonably. He states, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others” (160). Thus, he believes that government can only intrude in these matters if one’s religious beliefs cause harm or injury to someone else.

Tolerance is Good

I thought that Voltaire in his “Reflections on Religion” had an interesting take on religious tolerance. In his section entitles “Sect” he discusses how, by definition, no sect of religion contains the truth. In the sciences, there are no sects: “There are no sects in mathematics, in experimental physics.” This is because the truth of things is easily seen and does not need to be argued about. “A man who examines the relations between a cone and a sphere is not of the sect of Archimedes” because that implies that there are people who do not believe the laws set forth by Archimedes relating to cones and spheres. To agree with the ideas of, just to name a few, Newton, Archimedes, and Pythagoras, you are not part of a sect, rather “you merely agree with the truth as demonstrated by them.” Voltaire shows that the very existence of so many sects of religion means that all of the sects are wrong. “This is the character of truth: it is of all time, it is for all men, it has only to show itself to be recognized, and one cannot argue against it. A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.”

After briefly going into how different sects see the beliefs of all other sects as superstitious in his section entitled “Superstition,” Voltaire goes on to discuss religious tolerance. In the very first paragraph of the section entitles “Tolerance,” Voltaire makes it clear that he is an advocate of it. “What is tolerance?” he asks. “It is the natural attribute of humanity.” Drawing on his recent assertions that all religious sects are wrong, he says, “We are all formed of weakness and error: let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly.” Of course, this is not the way that the world often works, as Voltaire shows by giving us countless examples of religious persecution and religious intolerance throughout history. Voltaire’s solution to religious persecution and what he calls fanaticism is simple: “If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other’s throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace.” According to Shaftesbury, this was not the ideal that people were striving for at the time, as Shaftesbury tells us with regret how “now uniformity of opinion (a hopeful project!) is looked on as the only expedient against this evil. The saving of souls is now the heroic passion of exalted spirits; and is become in a manner the chief care of the magistrate, and the very end of the government itself.” Voltaire would argue that this is not the proper solution, and tolerating all of the different religious sects would bring a lot more peace to the world that trying to force a single religion on everyone would.

Looking at modern America, I would have to think that Voltaire is right. America is known for having a huge number of different religious groups in it, and for its religious toleration. Of course, there are little arguments all the time between different religious groups, and there are crazy fanatic groups like Westboro Baptist Church, but as a whole they all live harmoniously together. In any case, there aren’t any religious wars going on between American religious groups, which is a win in my books.

Franklin's Progressive Religious Vision

Benjamin Franklin’s influences upon America’s foundation as a country as well as philosophical thinking and scientific study overshadow his progressive stance on religion. However, his religious view is a critical facet of what made Franklin so unique and directed his convictions as a member of the society he helped build. I was pleasantly surprised to find that his faith at the end of his life, in such a pious era, was very much aligned with my own who has never attended any sort of organized religious congregation. What Franklin was remarkably able to do with his attitude was rationalize his spirituality within his relationship to various religious leaders of the era. Knowing he was nearing the end of his life, Franklin authored a letter to Ezra Stiles entitled As To Jesus of Nazareth provides what might be the most revealing account of his religiosity. One of the final letters, this private document exists as a rare testimonial of Franklins that seems to have very little bias and conveys his ultimate attitude towards faith and religion. As to Jesus of Nazareth is the conclusion of a discourse maintained by Franklin and Stiles throughout latter half of the eighteenth century that began with the incongruous topic of scientific experimentation. As Franklins saw his life coming to and end, it is probably that he shifted his focus from empirical studies toward more conscientiously evaluating his perspective on religion.

Benjamin Franklin’s relationship with Ezra Stiles began during Stiles’ first stretch at Yale when he was supplied with equipment from Franklin to conduct some of the earliest experiments with electricity in New England. Stiles had been born raised by a domineering Reverend father, against whom he rebelled much as Franklin had, leading him to his interest in scientific investigation (Macphail 227). The two shared a passion for academics and the study of nature and society that engendered both their membership within the American Academy of Arts and Sciences as well as their longstanding relationship. Stiles himself has been described as an insatiable empiricist, much akin to Franklin, and his collection of diaries, itineraries and studies provide the most extensive collection of private papers form New England in the late-colonial and early-national era (Macphail 226). Among these are five volumes dedicated solely to Stiles Thermometrical Register of temperature data from around the world that motivated his February 20^th, 1765 letter to Franklin who currently resided in London (Sparks 260). Although he was presently an ordained minister, Stiles’ fixation on classification and comprehension of nature reveals itself in his request for thermometers from the Royal Society to collect “annual accounts of the mercurial altitudes in several parts of each of the sixteen continental provinces”(Sparks 261)). He goes on to confer his experimentation in analyzing temperature relationships between snow and air, and his desire for access to publications from more advanced Acadamies of Sciences in Europe that Franklin had access to. In addition, his letter contained another letter, asking for Professor Winthrop of Harvard to be considered for membership to the Royal Society (Sparks 262). The letter’s content and language exhibit a sense of meekness on the part of Stiles that demonstrate his reverence to and reliance upon Franklin for assistance. Clearly Stiles’ requests demonstrate his reliance upon Franklin, but even further his reverence and inferiority present themselves when he writes “If I make too free a use of your name and friendship, you have it in your power to prevent the abuse” (Sparks 260). The reverence that Stiles shows for Franklin as an educator and enlightener sets the stage for their later correspondences and relationship as a whole. In a letter from January 13, 1772, Franklin once again sets out to provide Stiles with access to information as a teacher would to a student, this time in Stiles’ field of religion. Beyond simply extending the offer of procurement as a gift, Franklin asserts his views on the work as well as other religious texts in his classically Socratic, logical method (Franklin, Zoroaster). The content is educational in nature, as if he is at once trying to provide Stiles with the raw material as well as persuade him of his convictions with truth of reason.

The relationship between the two men is most explicit in their correspondence in early 1790. Stiles asserts his feelings towards Franklin as “one, who for so many years has continued to love, estimate, and reverence his abilities and literary character, with an ardor and affection bordering on adoration” (Sparks 122). The effusiveness of his sentiment is overwhelming, perhaps because of the magnitude of the favor he asks of Franklin. In addition to a portrait to hang at Yale (where he was now President) in Franklin’s honor, he asks for Franklin’s religious belief, with the submissive acknowledgement that a response is not requisite. Ezra Stiles, the former Congregational Minisiter, knew of Franklin's deist leanings but desired to confirm his attitude with some concrete beliefs. His assertion of himself as a Christian who “would to Heaven all others were as I am” in denomination reveals Stiles duality (Sparks 122). The request both reflects his own passion for Congregational worship as well as the scientific desire to classify and categorize Franklin.

Religion and education were still markedly intertwined at the time, and Franklin understood that both could significantly influence the current and future society of America. Far from rejecting the fact that in many ways rational thought and religious sentiment opposed each-other, he dedicated himself to finding a proper, rational balance between the two. As a prototypical enlightenment thinker, he refused to accept illogical supernatural explanations on phenomena of the world as religious zealots had but used empirical observational data to rationalize the world. He used the same system to formulate his spiritual creed. From an early age Franklin was already questioning the dogmatic religious beliefs set down upon him, stating in his autobiography “scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself" (Franklin Autobiography 113). He formulated a belief that was most applicable to society, measuring religion as he did all other things, in respect to utility. On these grounds, Franklin strongly affirmed the existence of a singular God who created the universe (Sparks 423). Perhaps the most central tenet of Franklin’s belief was the fact that he had endowed man with the most essential characteristics, “bestowing Life and Reason”(Franklin Articles). Such a fundamental understanding of God allowed Franklin to rationalize all denominations, with reason and freedom leading each man to select that religious path that best helped them act properly in the world, “that the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children” (Sparks 423). Franklin saw conduct and virtuous behavior on earth and within one’s community as the way to honor God, and this is not surprising. Faith was the proper path to virtue, not a diversion from being a good parent, a good spouse, a good neighbor or friend, a good subject or citizen, that is, in short, a good person. Faith was the instrument, not the end. Thus to Stiles specific question as to Franklin’s opinion of Jesus, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but he doubts he is the son of God out of his observed sense of man as a relative “inconsiderable Nothing” to the vastness of the universe (Sparks 424). Therefore, the likelihood of Jesus being the creator’s son is extraordinarily unlikely. Stiles may himself have held similar intuitions as he is described as having struggled internally with skepticism to the point his apprehension led him to consider abandoning his ministerial intentions for a career in law (Macphail 227). However, as a Congregational Church Minister, Stiles must have affirmed a belief in the concept of the Trinity at least to some degree, as Protestant churches uphold the concept of a Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit in their teachings. Protestantism is known for a less exact definition of the three, whereby the Spirit is sent from the Father by the Son, such that Jesus need only be recognized as a vessel, not necessarily the literal son of God (Wikipedia). If this looser affiliation of God and Jesus was sufficient for Stile’s approval is unclear, as the various Protestant churches vary in their perspective and Stiles himself had early misgivings about his theological beliefs.

Franklin appreciates potential value of institutional religion as a teacher and enforcer of a high moral code. His letter to George Whitefield explicitly asserts his wish for faith to be “more productive of good works” rather than conventional displays of “performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers” that do not serve any practical utility (Sparks 75). This holds true for all religions and explains his lifelong advocacy of religious tolerance. Religion serves as an educational force in instructing the populous on the virtue of being a good citizen. Therefore, to Franklin it represents an equally valuable influence as scientific, secular studies. Franklin’s overarching message to Stiles is that he values the benefit that religion holds in relation to the service it provides a community in responsible behavior. The specific congregation does not matter, only the acknowledgement of a superior Being that stimulates the virtuous conduct by which all society is improved. Franklin’s warning to Paine sums up his attitude, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?” (Sparks 282) In all his correspondences, Franklin attempts to advise his peers and instill in them his aspiration to pursue and popularize those ideals that better society as a whole; faith, reason, and toleration.

Works Cited

Franklin, Benjamin. On the Writings of Zoroaster. London, 13 January, 1772

--Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion in Two Parts. Philadelphia, 20 November, 1728

--The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin 2^nd ed. Edited by Leonard W Labree, Yale University Press. New Haven Connecticut, 2964

Macphail, Alasdair. "Ezra Stiles (29 November 1727-12 May 1795)". American Colonial Writers, 1735-1781. Ed. Emory Elliott. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 31. Detroit: Gale Research, 1984. 226-237. Dictionary of Literary Biography Complete Online. Gale. Vanderbilt University Jean and Alexander Heard Library. 10 December 2011

http://galenet.galegroup.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/servlet/DLBC_Online/nash87800/BK1497925053

Sparks, Jared. The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Volume X. Chicago: BF Stevens, 1882.