The Festival of Lights: Prelude

If you've followed this blog with any level of regularity I am sure you have noticed that I have a passionate interest in history, particularly religious history. For whatever reason I find religious history to be incredibly fascinating. Whether it takes the form of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc., it is both important and interesting to understand why certain groups of people believe the way they do (and it's something that is desperately needed today, since religious intolerance seems to infect our society like a virus).

With that said, I am excited to announce that my family and I will be celebrating Hanukkah (Chanukah) this coming week. That's right, at sunset on the 11th (in just two days) we will be lighting the first candle on our Menorah! It is my hope that this celebration will not only prove educational for my two kids (ages 5 and 2) but also for my wife and I. Even though I have read the Hanukkah history a few times I believe that actually celebrating the Festival of Lights will prove even more meaningful. After all, reading and studying something is one thing but to apply it is something different entirely.

It is also worth mentioning here at the onset that I am NOT Jewish. However, I do believe that many Jewish teachings and holidays can prove extremely insightful and meaningful for the practicing Christian. After all, even Jesus probably celebrated Hanukkah in his day! In addition, I hope to give Hanukkah the respect it deserves by celebrating the holiday as accurate as possible.

Over the course of those "Eight Crazy Nights" I hope to record some of my family's thoughts, insight, etc. here on this blog. In addition, I will also be posting a few random things on the history of Hanukkah, some interesting Hanukkah stories, etc.

I hope you will all stay tuned (starting December 11th at sundown) and will find this activity of interest to you as well. Please, over the course of the next few days, feel free to contribute anything you'd like. I would love to hear your insight as well!

Chag Urim Sameach!

Revisiting Salem: Part II

The Geography of Witchcraft
by Brad Hart

For the second installment in my series on the Salem Witch Trials, I have decided to look at the geography of seventeenth-century Salem, which has become the centerpiece in William and Mary Quarterly’s July, 2008 review of the Salem historical record. To be more specific, it is Professor Benjamin C. Ray’s article entitled, The Geography of Witchcraft Accusations in 1692 Salem Village that has caught my attention.

In this particular article, Prof. Ray challenges some of the status quo interpretations of the Salem geographical record, and in particular questions the validity of the analysis offered by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum in their groundbreaking book, Salem Possessed. [1] As Prof. Ray points out, the most significant source for Boyer and Nissenbaum’s work was the 1867 book by Charles W. Upham, Salem Witchcraft, which included a detailed map of virtually all the households in Salem Village. [2] With this map, Boyer and Nissenbaum endeavored to demonstrate how specific geographic locations within Salem Village -- based primarily on economic and social differences -- led to the factionalism that ultimately divided Salem on the witchcraft issue. For roughly thirty years, Boyer and Nissenbaum’s work has served as the standard interpretation of the Salem Story.

In recent years, however, a number of scholars have come forward to challenge the interpretation offered in Salem Possessed. In 2002, renowned historian Mary Beth Norton published her book, In The Devil’s Snare, which served to challenge some of the assertions made by Boyer and Nissenbaum. As Norton states in the introduction of her book:

The influential "Salem Possessed" (1974), by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, attributes the crisis to long-standing political, economic, and religious discord among men of Salem Village, denying the significance of women’s prominence as both accused and accuser…In the Devil’s Snare contends that the dramatic events of 1692 can be fully understood only by viewing them as intricately related to concurrent political and military affairs in northern New England. [3]

In addition to Norton’s assertions, Prof. Ray points out that the traditional interpretation of the Upham map by Boyer and Nissenbaum is incomplete:

Contrary to Boyer and Nissenbaum’s conclusions in "Salem Possessed," geographic analysis of the accusations in the village shows there was no significant villagewide east-west division between accusers and accused in 1692. Nor was there an east-west divide between households of different economic status…

…Though is may appear that the "Salem Possessed" map carries the burden of the argument about the socioeconomic and geographic foundation of the witchcraft accusations, the map does not supply all the evidence…a total of thirteen accusers were omitted, this indicating that the map is incomplete and does not represent all the accusers. [4]

Prof. Ray continues his argument by pointing out the inherently complex nature of geographical data. In his analysis, Ray claims that the map data included in Salem Possessed was conveniently construed to fit Boyer and Nissenbaum’s claims:

Boyer and Nissenbaum placed an all-important east-west demarcation line at the center of their map without explaining its precise location. The lack of explanation is curious because positioning the line slightly to the west would have made a significant difference in the crowded center of the map, shifting several As (a marker used to identify the accused) to the eastern side of the village. [5]

The rest of Prof. Ray’s article goes on to point out various omissions made by Boyer and Nissenbaum in their interpretation of the Upham map. In addition, the article argues that a geographical interpretation that seeks to divide Salem Village socially or economically is inherently too restrictive, and that future inquiry “needs to be set as free of interpretive assumptions as possible if scholars are to have a solid geographic foundation for further historical research.” [6]

Though truly a pioneering work that defined the historiography of the Salem Witch Trials for decades, Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum’s Salem Possessed should at least be seen as an incomplete take on the Salem saga.


Notes:
[1] Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, Mass., 1974).

[2] Charles Upham, Salem Witchcraft: With an Account of Salem Village and a History of Opinions on Witchcraft and Kindred Subjects, 2 vols. (Boston, Mass., 1867).

[3] Mary Beth Norton, In the Devil’s Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692 (New York, 2002), 4-5.

[4] Benjamin C. Ray, “The Geography of Witchcraft Accusations in 1692 Salem Village,” in The William and Mary Quarterly, vol, LXV, no. 3, (July, 2008), 453.

[5] Ibid, 456.

[6] Ibid, 478.

Cartoon Propaganda/Racism: Volume XIII

The Flintstones, cigarette commercial from 1961:

Revisiting Salem: Part I

The Economics of Witchcraft
by Brad Hart

Over the past week I have had the wonderful opportunity of delving into the July, 2008 issue of the William and Mary Quarterly, which is almost exclusively dedicated to a reexamination of the Salem Witch Trials. Though the history surrounding Salem during the latter part of the 17th century has received an incredible amount of attention, I believe that anytime the “flagship” journal of early American history decides to revisit a topic, we would all do well to follow suit. With this in mind, I hope to dedicate the next couple of my posts on this blog to a review of the Salem historical record and the assessment offered by various historians on this topic in the WMQ.

As mentioned before, the history surrounding the Salem Witch Trials is one of the more popular events in all of American colonial history. Literally hundreds of books and articles have been written over the centuries, making 17th century Salem one of the most publicized events in our nation’s past. While this overabundance of scholarly literature may discourage some historians from engaging in a revision of the Salem saga, other devout students of early American history remain undeterred. As historian Richard Latner of Tulane University states:

The 1692 Salem witchcraft outbreak has had an enduring capacity for attracting popular and scholarly attention…Richly complex and layered, it is continuously amenable to fresh investigation. Thus, though the harvest of books and articles on Salem may deter researchers from this well-trodden terrain, ample rewards may result not only from formulating new interpretations but also from reexamining prevailing conceptualizations. [1]

It is this fresh perspective, a desire to challenge the traditional historiography of the Salem story, that demands our attention. For too long Salem and its witchcraft legacy have been oversimplified to the point that its participants are hardly recognized. The traditional Salem scholarship of the past, most of which portrays the witchcraft “outbreak” as a virtual plague centered in the Puritan “age of superstition,” causes us to see these early Puritans as quasi-madmen, bent on eradicating even the smallest trace of witchcraft.

In Richard Latner’s analysis of Salem, however, we are presented with a colonial society deeply divided by factionalism. During the 1690s, Salem was a community immersed in transition. The traditional covenant community based exclusively on a subsistence agricultural system was rapidly being replaced with the emerging forces of merchant capitalism. As a result, Salem’s population was thrown into a world of economic instability and transition. As Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum point out in their groundbreaking book, Salem Possessed, “the prosaic, everyday lives of obscure and inarticulate men and women…were being shaped by powerful forces of historical and economic change.” [2]

Due in part to these economic changes, the poorer segments of the Salem population found themselves in a state of financial instability. In addition, the ecclesiastical leaders of Salem, still awaiting a new royal charter from England, began to see their authority erode from underneath their feet. The increased level of factionalism between Salem Town and Salem Village – which had remained divided for decades – began to coalesce into rival economic segments of society. Contrary to popular belief, it was the witch-hunters, not the common citizen that were “in retreat” from the “oppressive” advances of those in Salem Town, where merchant capitalism was at its strongest.[3]

It was this internal division, argues Richard Latner that helped to create an atmosphere in which witchcraft accusations could flourish. The initial accusation of Reverend Samuel Parris’ daughter and niece are perfect case studies of how factionalism played out during the witch-hunt fiasco. The accusers, mostly consisting of paranoid clergymen bent on regaining their authority, preyed upon the economic plight of the poorer segment within Salem Village. As a result of their efforts, the overzealous clergy of Salem Town found all the support they would need to levy their accusations of witchcraft. As Christine Alice Young points out:

The powers of witches, were associated with mercantile activity within Salem Town, not the agricultural hinterland of Salem Village…it was impossible in seventeenth-century Massachusetts to simultaneously be a merchant and a leader of the orthodox, anticommercial party in colonial politics. [4]

With the backing of the economically downtrodden, Salem became a haven for radical accusation and religious over zealotry. The opposition, most of which was centered in Salem Town, found themselves virtually helpless against the “brainwashed” – intolerant is probably a more appropriate label -- masses of Salem Village.

While Latner’s economic explanations for Salem’s transgressions are convincing, it is important to remember that economics is but one of many factors that led to the witchcraft accusations of 17th century Salem. In the next few days, I hope to provide additional perspectives, the majority coming from the most recent edition of the William and Mary Quarterly, which I hope will provide an overall historical "landscape" of the Salem saga.

Notes:
[1] Richard Latner, “Salem Witchcraft, Factionalism, and Social Change Reconsidered: Were Salem’s Witch-Hunters Modernization’s Failures?” William and Mary Quarterly, vol. LXV, no. 3, Pp. 423.
[2] Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), xii.
[3] Ibid, 425-426.
[4] Christine Alice Young, Good Order to Glorious Revolution: Salem, Massachusetts, 1628-1689 (Ann Arbor, Mi., 1980), 7.

Cooking With Corazon, Episode XV

Coronary Breakfast Burrito
with Mango/Avocado Salsa

So I apologize for my brief absence from the cooking blogs. Life just gets busy I guess. With that said, I am proud to bring this newest installment of "Cooking With Corazon" by introducing you all to the CORONARY BREAKFAST BURRITO:



As you can see, the burrito is stuffed with steak, egg, cheese, potato and bacon. Yes, it's not the healthiest choice but sometimes you just gotta say to hell with eating healthy!

I also decided to add a mango/avocado salsa to the burrito, which gave it a very different flavor. Traditionally breakfast burritos are eaten with a tomato-based salsa, which is why I wanted to change it up a bit. Here's a pic of the salsa:



I LOVE this salsa. I've made it before for fish tacos and it was terrific. The citrus flavor creates a very refreshing taste on the palate. Here's the recipe:

-1 mango (chopped)
-2 avocados (chopped)
-1 cup chopped cucumbers and cabbage mix
-1/2 green onion
-1/4 cup green onion
-1/4 cup cilantro
-1 lime (juice squeezed into mix)
-1 tbs. hot sauce

Mix it all together

Good stuff! It was interesting to taste the citrus salsa on a breakfast burrito. Made for a good mix.

Day of Infamy: 68 Years Ago

The United States of Amnesia: America's Historical Ignorance, Part II

In yesterday's post I pointed to a number of studies that reveal both a general and profound national illiteracy on the subject of American history. Today I wanted to bring up one more study (which focuses specifically on the history of the American Revolution) and why it is so dangerous for a society to forget its heritage.

A recent survey/study conducted by the American Revolution Center sought out to determine just how much the average American really knows about the founding of this nation. As part of their survey they asked several random American citizens if maintaining a working knowledge of the American Revolution was important or not. 90% of Americans responded by stating that it was "extremely important" for citizens today to understand the history of the Revolution if they hoped to be able to participate effectively in the democratic process. In addition, these same subjects volunteered to take a "general test" on the American Revolution. 89% stated that they were "extremely confident" they would be able to pass with a B or better.

So just how many people passed the test you ask? Only 17%!!!

That's right, roughly 83% of American citizens failed this test on the BASIC history of the American Revolution. In fact, the average score was a dismal 44% (click here to see the actual results and summary of this survey/test, and click here to see the actual test questions and take it for yourself).

When hearing of these atrocious scores Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board, aptly stated the following:

The survey provides stark evidence that Americans of the 21st century are increasingly -- sadly, deplorably -- ignorant of their legacy, their history and their political and constitutional birthright of the 18th century.

Susan Jacoby, author of the book, The Age of American Unreason echoes Mr. Buntings words when she writes:

During the past four decades, America's endemic anti-intellectual tendencies have been grievously exacerbated by a new species of semiconscious anti-rationalism, feeding on and fed by an ignorant popular culture of video images and unremitting noise that leaves no room for contemplation or logic. This new form of anti-rationalism, at odds not only with the nation's heritage of eighteenth-century Enlightenment reason but with modern scientific knowledge, has propelled a surge of anti-intellectualism capable of inflicting vastly greater damage than its historical predecessors inflicted on American culture and politics.

With such deplorable scores one can only wonder why more emphasis is NOT placed on educating Americans about their noble past. After all, European nations have, in the past two decades, increased the emphasis their schools place on history at almost all levels and the results have been extremely positive. Overall, European nations, when compared with their American counterparts, have triple the historical literacy -- and their history is a helluva lot older than ours so there's more to learn!

As I stated in my earlier post on this topic, I find is strange and even downright hypocritical for Americans to espouse such passionate political beliefs and allegiances while being so willfully ignorant of their past. Of course I am not suggesting that all Americans are to become professional historians, but is it too much to ask that they be capable of passing a test on the BASIC history of this nation? Doesn't it seem to make sense that before one takes up a political cause based on constitutional principles that he/she first possess an understanding of the Constitution itself? I guess it's sort of like the professing Christian who, despite any knowledge of the actual doctrine of his/her creed, expresses an everlasting allegiance to a faith that he/she knows nothing about.

Now, perhaps you think that I am just a biased blogger. After all, I did major in history. Would not a biology major or a math major express these same sentiments with regards to their field of study? Perhaps. But remember this: it is impossible for anyone to truly understand the political nature, governmental construct, and the rich heritage of this nation without first having a general grasp of its history.

But don't believe me. Instead give ear to the author of the Declaration of Independence and the 3rd president of this fine republic (assuming you even know who that is):

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
~Thomas Jefferson

The United States of Amnesia: America's Historical Ignorance, Part I

Does America face a crisis of conscience? Do we today know less about our roots than generations past? Is our national heritage eroding away below our feet not because of some "liberal conspiracy" but due to pure apathy?

I believe so.

A recent survey conducted by the Nation's Report Card 2001: U.S. History indicated that more than half of American high school seniors lack a "basic" understanding of American history ("basic" meaning questions like "What was the Holocaust," and, "Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?"). To make matters worse, a 2003 Roper Survey of Americans found that only 38% of Adults and 53% of college students had a basic understanding of the history of the Holocaust. Another 68% of Americans were unable to name at least three signers of the Constitution, and only 32% of adult Americans possessed a "basic understanding" of American history in general. In addition, one out of five students thought Watergate occurred before 1900 and only one-third could place the Civil War within the correct half-century. (click here for a link to these sources).

Historian David McCullough, who in recent years has become the most outspoken proponent for the advancement of historical education, has stated on numerous occasions that we are facing the prospect of national amnesia. “Amnesia of society is just as detrimental as amnesia for the individual. We are running a terrible risk. Our very freedom depends on education, and we are failing our children in not providing that education.” McCullough also adds that we cannot single out our youth exclusively, but that we should take note of the historical ignorance of the adult population as well. Since the overwhelming majority of Americans obtain their historical knowledge from Hollywood, The History Channel, and other forms of pop culture, McCullough suggests that we are facing a crisis of national identity in virtually every generation of today's society.

Skeptics within the education community insist that the study of history carries less importance in the modern world than do topics such as math, science and computers. In fact the Department of Education for the State of California has determined that the study of American history should emphasize more "relevant" issues. As a result, California is currently phasing out its American Revolution and Civil War curriculums, claiming that they are of less importance to the "modern" student. In fact, the overwhelming majority of high school students nationwide are required to take only 2 semesters of history in order to graduate, while the requirements for math and science are usually double. Since history is included in the larger genre of Social Studies, less emphasis is placed on its importance. At the college level, history classes and professors are but a small part of what most universities call, The Department of Humanities. As a result, most college student are able to breeze through their collegiate careers without ever being required to take a single course of history.

I find it both strange and hypocritical that the study of history has become a mere subcategory in the larger arenas of Social Studies and Humanities. After all, Math, Science, English, etc. are still esteemed as unique and separate fields of study. So why not history? Historian George Lipsitz sums up this historical crisis best when he writes:

The crisis in historical thinking is certainly real. The dislocations of the past two centuries, the propaganda apparatuses of totalitarian powers, disillusionment with the paradigms of the Enlightenment, and popular culture itself have all served to make the search for a precious and communicable past one of the most pressing problems of our time.

I for one find it amazing that Americans are so quick to profess their love, admiration and patriotism for this nation, yet remain ignorant of its history and development. In many ways, this phenomenon is similar to the professing Christian that knows little or nothing about his/her religion's doctrine. How can one profess loyalty or patriotism to a nation or cause if he/she knows nothing of its history? As Cicero stated so many years ago, "History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity...one cannot become a true citizen without first gaining an understanding of history."

In a series of seminars, historian David McCullough has stressed the "historical crisis" that this nation currently faces. His words are far better than mine, so I will conclude by attaching a few of McCullough's video clips. I hope you will enjoy.


Part 2:

'Twas the Night Before Arraignment

Back during my days with the Mesa County Sheriff's Office (before we moved to Co. Springs) I wrote this lame little poem, which is a play on Clement Moore's classic, "Night Before Christmas." Being that Christmas is upon us, I thought it would be fun to post it here. I hope you enjoy:

'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT


'Twas the night before arraignment when all through the jail,
Not an inmate was stirring, except those with revoked bail.

The cell doors were all locked by the night guard with care,
In hopes that the kiddie rapists would soon get the electric chair.

Detoxees were nestled all snug on the concrete floor,
With visions of meth rocks they stole from a crack whore.

And Sergeant in his office and I on my rounds,
Are counting the hours until we can leave all these hounds.

When out in booking pre-screen there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my station to see what was the matter.

Away to booking I flew like a flash,
Pulled out my taser hoping for a cho-mo to smash.

The lights on the roof of the newly painted squad car,
Gave a luster of mid-day to that State Patrol pig from afar.

When what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But an uncooperative DUI drunk off of cheap light beer.

With an attitude and mouth so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment that this guy was a dick.

More rapid than eagles his curse words they came,
As he whistled and shouted and called us by name:

"Now Copper, now Piggie, now asshole and fat witch!
On loser, on lowlife, on psycho and punk-bitch!

Let me out of these cuffs! Let me stand up real tall!
Then I'll take you down! take you down! take you down one and all!"

As dumb drunks that before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with pissed off cops, mount to the sky.

So off with the cuffs the punches they flew,
With a room full of cops and Sgt. Nicholas too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard with a dud,
This stupid drunk's head hit the ground with a thud.

As I drew in my hand, and was turning to help,
I heard this dumb fool scream out with a yelp:

"It was Big John, Fat Billy, Jimmy and Paul,
If you give me a deal I will rat out them all."

He was dressed in all fur from his head to his limp,
And his clothes were all tarnished just like a dumb pimp.

A bundle of weed he was toting in his slacks,
Along with some Doritos for his special munchies snacks.

He looked like a peddler, his shoes covered in mud,
But for now he was just a punk covered in his own blood.

His eyes -- how they twinkled! his face as white as chalk,
I could tell right away that he had smoked a good rock!

His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard on his chin covered in lipstick from his ho.

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had EVERYTHING to dread.

He spoke not a word but just kept on resisting,
He looked so pathetic on the ground cursing and twisting.

Soon he was stripped of almost all of his clothes,
From the cap on his head to the shoes on his toes.

But alas, just like every other drunk in creation,
This dude quickly found himself thrown into isolation.

But I heard him exclaim as we walked out of sight,
"I will see you all in court! I'm not going down without a fight!

More on John Adams' Religion and Thanksgiving Proclamations

Over at his excellent blog Boston, 1775 (a blog that you really must check out if you haven't already), historian J.L. Bell has recently put together a series of posts on the religion of John Adams, with particular emphasis being given to his presidential Thanksgiving proclamations.

To start things off, Bell cites John Adams' 1812 letter to Benjamin Rush, in which he laments his decision to issue a presidential Thanksgiving proclamation:

The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has allarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicon prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion.

And while the aforementioned letter seems to affirm Adams' belief that his Thanksgiving proclamation cost him the election with Jefferson, Mr. Bell points out that Thanksgiving proclamations, though apparently regrettable for Adams, were actually quite popular in early America:

Authors have accepted a lot of Adams’s late-life recollections and analyses uncritically, but not this one. The notion that a Thanksgiving proclamation was the most unpopular of Adams’s acts in office seems incredible.

In fact, the American government had already proclaimed occasional Thanksgiving holidays, and they seemed to be popular. The Congress declared one on 18 Dec 1777 (though with Philadelphia under British control, members had less to be thankful for). When Adams’s predecessor, George Washington, issued such a proclamation in 1789, he noted that “both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested” it.

As a child of Puritan Massachusetts, the language of Adams' thanksgiving proclamations are distinct from his predecessors. As Mr. Bell points out:

I think the crucial difference is what Adams asked people to do. He proclaimed a day of “solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer,” with “fervent thanksgiving” as an afterthought. In contrast, the Congress and Washington asked Americans to pray and give thanks, but they didn’t mention humiliation or fasting.

Fasting was the basis of the New England Puritans’ Thanksgiving tradition. The big dinner came only at the end of a day spent in church while eating little and feeling sinful. Adams’s holiday proclamations weren’t meant to produce “an Establishment of a National Church,” as he claimed his enemies said, but they did try to spread one form of worship nationwide.

[...]

Finally, religious orthodoxy was also a dividing line between Adams and his rival Thomas Jefferson, at least as the Federalist press portrayed the two men. (In reality, they weren’t far apart in their beliefs.) The 1799 proclamation’s warning about “principles, subversive of the foundations of all religious, moral, and social obligations,” clearly tried to claim all religion and morality for one side—the anti-French Revolution side—of the U.S. of A.’s politics.

Perhaps this helps to explain why Adams later regretted his Thanksgiving proclamation. In terms of his personal religious beliefs, Adams was far closer to Thomas Jefferson than to his Puritan roots. And as we all know, Jefferson himself abstained from making such proclamations during his two terms in office. One could easily imagine seeing Adams in his later years kicking himself for making a religious proclamation that did not fit very well with his personal beliefs.

With this said, we must keep in mind that John Adams was very difficult to pin down on many topics -- religion being just one. His personal writings are chalked full of highs and lows; ups and downs. Surely the man would have benefited from a little Prozac in his system (though I doubt he would have taken it!). In conclusion, I will cite Mr. Bell's illustration of just how difficult John Adams can be to pin down on matters of religion:

Adams’s statements on religion also tended to be personal. Not in the sense that, as Jefferson wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God.” Rather, personal in the sense that Adams often thought he was being personally and unfairly attacked—he even took that as a sign of his virtue. He therefore spent a lot of ink refuting what he thought others might say about him.

Here, for example, is more context for the quotation above about how he saw “Religion and Virtue” as fundamental:

I agree with you in Sentiment that Religion and Virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all the Combinations of human Society. But if I should inculcate this doctrine in my Will, I should be charged with Hypocrisy and a desire to conciliate the good will of the Clergy towards my Family as I was charged by Dr. [Joseph] Priestley and his Friend [Thomas] Cooper and by Quakers, Baptists and I know not how many other sects, for instituting a National Fast, for even common Civility to the Clergy, and for being a Church going animal. . . .

If I should inculcate those “National, Social, domestic and religious virtues” you recommend, I should be suspected and charged with an hypocritical, Machiavilian, Jesuitical, Pharisaical attempt to promote a national establishment of Presbyterianism in America, whereas I would as soon establish the Episcopal Church, and almost as soon the Catholic Church. . . .

If I should recommend the Sanctification of the Sabbath like a divine, or even only a regular attendance on publick Worship as a means of moral Instruction and Social Improvement like a Phylosopher or Statesman, I should be charged with vain ostentation again, and a selfish desire to revive the Remembrance of my own Punctuality in this Respect, for it is notorious enough that I have been a Church going animal for seventy six years i.e. from the Cradle; and this has been alledged as one Proof of my Hypocrisy.

As you can see, this letter was almost all about how the many enemies of John Adams would distort whatever he said, so he was best off saying nothing. We have to dig beneath his self-pitying declarations to find out how he viewed religion, as opposed to how he suspected or hoped people viewed him.