Common Sense use of the Bible

Both readings illustrate the malleability of the Bible in American History.  This was the first time I read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense in its entirety and had I not been aware of his staunch deism and latter literary critiques of the Bible, I would have guessed him a trained minister.  However, Paine’s skill, resembling an effective minister, is rhetoric and no effective argument for such a drastic step as revolution would be complete without use of the Bible as a foundation text in American history.  It is this ability to have a thesis and then find Christian scripture to validate it that was so fascinating.  As Dr. Byrd points out toward the end of chapter five, the same passages that were used to vilify British colonial rule are immediately used to justify the emerging continental government.  In Paine’s argument he wants to suggest the cause of revolution was a forgone conclusion and the time for reconciliation with Britain has passed.  But, Paine’s pamphlet suggests much to the contrary, as he is directing his diatribe to the “undecided” people or states that are least invested in revolution.  The use of scripture is integral in making the case even if Paine would prefer that philosophy alone was sufficient.  This tactic of the Bible as proof text is nothing if not consistent up to modern day.  And like the revolutionary leaders used passages trumpeted by loyalists immediately after victory, the context makes the verse important to society, not the other way around.  It appears that revolutionary leaders were aware of their appropriation of loyalist passages and this was not concerning.