Although I applaud Holland for engaging in scholarship, I have read his book and I am not persuaded by his arguments. It gives the impression that Jefferson and Lincoln were dyed in the wool Christians and nothing could be further from the truth. Jefferson invoked Jesus and his principles in public, but often said something very different in private. Lincoln was very similar, although our 16th president warmed to Christianity as the Civil War raged on. Both men, however, were never Christians in the sense we think of today. That is, both me did not believe that Jesus died for our sins, or that he was the literal Son of God. They did think he was a great moral philosopher, however.
PS: Scholars, of whom I am one, have also taken issue with Holland's book. Look at the reviews in the Journal of American History, American Historical Review, and other leading journals.

If the above "scholar" thinks his arguements against Dr. Holland's book are so powerful, why does he not give his real name. That way we could study the matter for ourselves.

Mr. Lambert: what does my name have to do with the quality of Mr. Holland's arguments? None. Zip.

This book is an apprentice-level book not a scholarly book. It is appropriate for UVU students.

Although I applaud your efforts for engaging in a scholarly critique of Mr. Holland’s book, I have read your post and I am not persuaded by your arguments. The basis of Mr. Holland’s book was not to debate specific doctrinal tenants relating to Christianity and how each interpreted those differences. Mr. Holland is simply making the point that both Lincoln and Jefferson exemplified basic Christian qualities and values in each of their leadership and communication styles.

To have a debate about who is Christian and who is not is completely subjective. Christians to this day still can’t decide who is Christian and who is not Christian based on doctrinal differences. I lived in Japan and currently work with the Japanese in business. I consider the Japanese the most Christian of any group of people I know and they don’t believe a lick of Christian doctrine. But, they do practice the principles and values of Christianity.

In the LDS community they believe the Founding Fathers were Christians, or inspired by God, or whatever. This is due to D&C 101:80, as well as the nonsense mythology about the visit of the Founding Fathers to the St. George Temple to have their work done for them - leave it to the LDS to "baptize" America posthumously!

But to include such religious mythology and rubbish in a published book as Holland has done is an embarrassment to UVU and perpetuates the perception that the LDS are trying to take over that school to turn it effectively into "BYU Jr College."

Jefferson, Lincoln, and pretty much any leader with half a brain, address their remarks to their constituents and audiences rather than express their personal beliefs. Since they were speaking or writing largely to a constituency comprised of religious believers, many of whom were Christian, throwing in a Christian metaphor and allusion makes perfect rhetorical sense. But that cannot be taken as evidence of their personal beliefs.

In particular, the concept of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" has no religious basis whatsoever, and came from John Locke who was attacking Filmer's religious tripe justifying Kingly authority!

re: Anonymous | 6:33 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Agreed.

The Jefferson Bible has had all the "supernatural" parts removed; Does that sound like some a textbook defnition Christian would do?

FWIW; Jefferson was a Deist.