Before becoming president, James Madison had already co-authored the “Federalist Papers,” designed the Constitution, and framed the “Bill of Rights.” Garrett Sheldon (UVa-Wise) shares the political philosophy of the man who shaped so many of America’s founding documents. Garrett is the author of The Political Philosophy of James Madison. Also featured: David Kiracofe (Tidewater Community College) discusses the challenges of teaching recent controversial scholarship about Thomas Jefferson to high school and college aged audiences.
This type of content is made possible by listeners like you. Please consider partnering with us and help enrich the lives of all our listeners nationwide.
I heard the promo where they’re going to talk about Madison’s influence by his Calvinist upbringing which takes the view that Man is sinful and wicked and the only way to fight this was to institute the separation of powers we find in our government.
This sounds suspiciously to me like one of those Christian revisionist histories that attempts to prove America was founded as and intended to be a Christian nation.
Their invited speaker Garrett Sheldon has his vita linked in at his web site. That makes for some interesting reading as it includes things like, “Invited speaker on American Religion and Politics, Liberty University, April, 2007”, and “Paul’s Pastoral Letters,” John Leland Center for Theological Studies, at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise Baptist Collegiate Ministries, November 13, 2007”. His current areas of research says, “Dr. Sheldon is author of the Christian novel What Would Jesus Do? which is part of the “WWJD” movement”.
I hope many of us will have the chance to listen and call in to challenge this man’s assertions.
Scott, thanks for your engaged interest in this topic. We do look forward to hearing your thoughts after you hear the broadcast.
Sadly probably not as we’ll be getting the kids ready for bed then. I don’t think I’ll have the chance to listen.
My apologies Lew4n. I misread your statement to ask if you would be hearing from me. I thought the program was a live call in tonight at 7:30 but it looks as if the program has already taken place and that I can download the mp3. I will listen and you may hear back from me. Thanks for taking the time to read these comments.
“Separation of powers, checks and balances, freedom of expression, freedom of religion … these ideals of American culture actually come from the very religious upbringing of the most influential of the framers of the Constitution, James Madison.” Hogwash and propaganda. From The Background of the Constitution, [Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances] “have origins in classical antiquity, but the framers used the work of French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu to provide theoretical justification for their adoption.” From Wikipedia, “The separation of powers, also known as trias politica, is a model for the governance of democratic states. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the uncodified Constitution of the Roman Republic.” Paraphrasing Wikipedia, the origin of the system of “checks and balances” and separation of powers is specifically credited to Montesquieu.
You cannot credibly claim that the source of these ideals was either Madison or Madison’s “very religious upbringing.”
Mr. Sheldon states that Madison tolerated “no mention of religion in the Constitution” because it’s “still a controversial issue”. That’s an evasive and confusing characterization. Also, the assertion of Madison’s promotion “of a healthy Christianity” via the state is misleading if not disingenuous. Madison was a much better politician (and Christian) than Mr. Sheldon, finding that it was in both God’s and the state’s interest to separate church and state. Says Madison, “the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world.”
Mr. Sheldon neglects to mention that Madison was promoting a healthy government by excluding religious demagoguery. Sheldon’s inflection when he states, “I mean, the “government isn’t secular, it isn’t against religion …” conflates secularism with opposition to religion. This is an unacceptable slur and misrepresentation by a Professor and one of our public academies. “Secularity is the state of being separate from religion” and the government should indeed be “separate from religion”, as Madison intended.
Mr. Sheldon’s signal “divine accountability” of the Calvinist government servant, when it conflicted with his duty, could not possibly have been tolerated by Madison as that would, in principle, have wrecked the goal of neutrality.
Wouldn’t it have been good to reveal that Mr. Sheldon is also the author of What Would Jesus Do?, In His Steps, What Would Jesus Do?, What Would Jesus Do?: A Contemporary Retelling of Charles M. Sheldon’s Classic, in His Steps, and What Would Jefferson Say??
At best, I will grade this show a rather shabby production, lacking research, accuracy, and forthrightness. I hope this is not the normal quality, because I do not look forward to having to monitor and counter such nonsense, though I might receive some benefit. Moreover, I think you do a disservice to Madison, (and maybe Jefferson,) your listeners, and the history of Virginia.
To Duane E: Thanks for the comment. We’ve asked some early American historians to listen to the interview to give us a better sense of where Garrett Sheldon’s argument fits in mainstream history today. Certainly, we knew that he’s rather conservative and religiously oriented compared to many historians.
Three points: (not so quick as I’d hoped)
1. I think you’re right to call us out on the introduction–we do seem to be claiming that the only origin of those Consitutional principles was James Madison’s upbringing. That’s clearly untrue, as you point out, and not what we meant to imply. We should have said something like: “Those values had particular resonance to James Madison, possibly because of his deeply religious upbringing”.
2. I don’t want to speak for Garrett Sheldon, but I don’t *think* he meant to claim Madison invented those principles based on his own religious upbringing. I think his claim is that those values would have had a particular resonance for Madison, which in the end, helped bring them into our Constitution and political culture. I think taking exception to that claim is completely valid, but we feel that Sheldon’s argument is intriguing and compelling, and should be part of the discussion. Also, it’s important to remember that the Englightenment (of whom Montesquie and others were a part) and religious thinking are not mutually exclusive. Many of the most influential Englightment thinkers were deeply religious, including Kant, Newton, Leibniz. Their ideas may have driven religious institutions crazy at times, and led to the Church’s diminished influence, but that doesn’t mean that the Enlightment doesn’t emerge from religious thought in some ways.
3. Finally, you seem to be suggesting that we should have warned our audience that Garret Sheldon is religious and probably conservative. We take exception to that. We feature guests who are liberal, conservative, libertarian, atheist, religious, and we never warn our audience about their political or religious views. Instead, we trust our audience to understand that our guests are making an argument–and we expect members of the audience to make their own judgments about the validity of the argument. We don’t claim that any individual program represents a balanced and comprehensive view, although we hope you’ll find that balance in listening to several of our programs over the years. I agree in this case, we muddied the waters with our introduction to the interview. I also think it would have been interesting and revealing to note that Sheldon was instrumental in launching the What Would Jesus Do? movement in the 1990’s. It would have made a better interview.
In any case, thanks for the comments. We hope you’ll listen and comment again.
Thank you for your response and concessions, Mr. Dukes.
Of course enlightenment thinking emerged from a religous milieu. Montesquieu’s context was Catholic France but himself was mostly a secularist nobleman with an anthopological bent and a critic of the Catholic dominated polity. The development of an opposing Protestant culture was in parallel with the emergence of the Enlightenment. The point your show (and Mr. Sheldon) missed is that the Enlightenment movement was a separation from the coagulated religiousity of the church and not some intensified, alternative religiousity.
My impression is that Mr. Sheldon did not reiterate your opening claim (an impression strong enough that I am not motivated to listen to the show for a third time). The producer is responsible for that frame. I note that your response harbors some confusion still as you fail to realize that perhaps it was principles from antiquity which influenced Madison’s Protestant culture, thus the “resonance” of those religious values to the principles.
From your show, I am not sure what resolution Mr. Sheldon argues towards. Moreover, I found his “argument” neither intriguing nor compelling, but more sloppy and subliminal. I infer that there is little objection to the particulars I have addressed; these deserve airing against Mr. Sheldon’s “argument” if you are interested in enlightening.
Re your third point, I don’t believe you are holding yourselves to high standard. Neither I nor most of your listeners have time to evaluate your program’s overall ideology. That is mostly left to your subjective evaluation. However, I am sure that there are points of view that your program never airs, so you cannot console yourselves that it is a neutral platform.
Your argument that trust in your neutrality is sufficient to alleviate your obligation to identify biases (or errors) is without merit. While you may occasionally provoke an examination such as mine, that must be balanced against the near entirety of listeners who will neither hear any counter-argument on your program (or if they do, will rarely contrast them with the prior show) nor will investigate a show’s claims. I doubt this comment venue provide any comparable distibution of contrasting views. Your format is entertaining, perhaps provocative, but it falls short of educational.
Labeling Mr. Sheldon as religious or conservative would be inadequate just as categorizing my objections would be. Surely, though, your format could incorporate more contrast to shady claims. The name of your program and the public venue you are granted obligates you.