Posted on 01/10/2009 12:12:11 PM PST by BuddhaBrown
You used too many words.
The Sheep never read anything that’s longer than a station break from “American Idol”.
Pretty good read. Thomas Jefferson is one historical figure that I truly admire.
“This is a position based in ignorance.”
UNDERSTATEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Good post!)
A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse. --- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787Google Jefferson Bill of Rights and see what you find.
ML/NJ
the amendement IMHO does not mean no religion in government. but no government interference in religion. i figure that is to make it possible for us to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by those who do not share our beliefs. however, the wording is ambiguous enough that people who want to stifle religion can call on the constitution to help. if one wanted to one could argue that making Christmas a federal holiday is unconstitutional because it favors christian beliefs over other religions, and unfortunately, with the right liberal judges it could be ruled this way.
Certainly you don’t imagine that old Tom believed the American federal Bill of Rights applied to all levels of government here or to any level of government in other countries.
Sure, he preferred such protections at the state level and fought for such locally in VA, but he did not see the federal bill doing that.
It's really hard for me to parse the text of your question. I suggest you find out what Mr. Jefferson considered the "foundation of the Constitution."
ML/NJ
“You used too many words.”
OK.
I’ll boil it down to a famous old poem I recently wrote:
Roll, Tom, Roll down in your grave,
for I and millions know not the feel.
To see this country and freedom you gave,
devoured daily by despots with zeal.
And to see this done even in your name,
your people, your party, have they no shame?
I pray to the Father similar as you,
for this nation’s defenders, the proud and the few.
Though a long sworn oath would have me eating my hat,
I say come back to us, Tom, and even I will vote Democrat!
From one ‘Old Sarge’ to another: “Drive On”
“It’s really hard for me to parse the text of your question.”
I’ll try again:
It would be correct to say that Jefferson would have personally liked to see no government involvement in denominational religion and vice versa. The quotes I’ve already provided, and more if needed, show that he had absolutely NO desire for the federal government to demand that states not mix government and religion:
“...Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.”
As I mentioned in the original post, that last phrase demonstrates his distrust of such authority, but he clearly feared the tyranny of a federal government dictating to states religion or nonreligion.
Good post, but aren’t you preaching to the choir? :)
“Good post, but aren’t you preaching to the choir?”
Generally, yes, I would think. But some in the choir apparently failed American History 101.
Actually, I was/am in the midst of a typical Darwin-vs-Creation / public schools / separation of church and state type of discussion on another thread. Some there seemed to incorrectly understand the meaning of Jefferson’s wall and the Framers’ original intention to restrict the power of the Supreme Court.
So I reposted my article here, mostly for Shiites and giggles.
Most Christians would consider Jefferson an enemy if he were alive today.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
“Most Christians would consider Jefferson an enemy if he were alive today.”
Non-Christians love to claim Jefferson was a Deist often in naked attempts to deemphasize our national Judaeo/Christian heritage. And Christians often overstate Jefferson’s standing among their own. In reality, he would not well fit the strict definition of either in my opinion while acknowledging the myriad definitions particularly on the Christian side.
He was unquestionably a man who possessed a rare measure of reason. This gift allowed him to reject clearly unreasonable aspects of his contemporaries’ religious traditions, practices and especially authorities. His historically prolific life provides enough writings and recorded actions to arm each side in this argument with affirmations of membership and evidence of heresy.
I’m no expert on Deism and certainly not one of its members. As I understand it, Deism involves acknowledging a sort of hands-off “universal creative force” but relies solely on nature and man’s reason to understand it while rejecting all “revealed” wisdom. If that is accurate, I doubt many pure Deists would, as Tom did, study the Bible, attend public worship (on government property no less), marry in a church, donate cash to Christian causes, send their kids to Christian school, authorize clergy on the federal payroll, date a letter “in the year of our Lord Christ...”, distribute the Gospel to Indians or produce the numerous and often orthodox quotes regarding “heaven”, “the Father” and His gifts which “are to be violated but with His wrath”.
On the other hand most Christians likely would not feel comfortable personally redacting parts of the Gospel before distributing it, rejecting the last book of the Bible (The Revelation of Jesus Christ) or later in life rejecting the deity of Christ (though not His philosophy).
I personally would classify Jefferson as a Christian with a very Deist-like tendency to opt for reason where tenants of faith seemed to him unreasonable - especially those tenants which had evolved with time and which had been corrupted by interpretations of and enforcement by unreasonable men. It was in this analogous sense that he opposed denominational tyranny with the same fervor as he opposed judicial despotism.
Regardless what anybody wants to label ‘ole Jeff’, the main point is that he made it quite clear that it was NOT the Framers’ intention to have the federal Bill of Rights prohibit lower units of governments and various faiths from making what he personally would consider the bad decision of ‘intermeddling’.
And he very certainly did not see the First Amendment as prohibiting such innocuous actions as some pimple-faced high school kid honoring God in a commencement speech, for example.
The Peace of Augsburg (1555) set the standard of cuius regio eius religio ("whose religion, that religion") or "in the Prince's land, the Prince's religion". What this meant at the time was that if you were a Lutheran and the prince in your local castle was Catholic, please move to an area where the local prince was a Lutheran.
The Founders believed in that to an extent, and did not want the new central governemnt telling people in Georgia, Virginia or New York what their religious requirements might be.
They do NOT teach this in high school history, but true it is.
“They do NOT teach this in high school history, but true it is.”
If I remember correctly from my kids’ history texts, that chapter was replaced by the one that states the evil European Republican Christian parked his battleship on Plymouth Rock, drove his tanks over the Indians, sat down briefly to eat the dead natives’ corn and turkey and then started importing Africans in order to infect them with AIDS.
I’m being silly, of course, but you are certainly correct that our faith heritage is either distorted or simply absent from public school.
Can't disagree with that.
But it's still wrong to suggest that he wasn't involved in the movement to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, I think.
ML/NJ
“Can’t disagree with that.
But it’s still wrong to suggest that he wasn’t involved in the movement to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, I think.”
And, I can’t disagree with that.
Of course, that’s not exactly what I said in the article.
I only stressed the point that he was in France at the time because, as my opening paragraph states, “some even think [Jefferson’s] wall quote is part of the First Amendment’s establishment clause...”
I like to argue, especially with intelligent sounding fellas(?) such as yourself. But I think we’re eye-to-eye now.
Jefferson? Isn’t he some old dead guy from long ago? /s
“Jefferson? Isn’t he some old dead guy from long ago?”
No, no, no.
Jefferson’s a living, crooked, indicted and recently defeated Democrat Congressman from Louisiana who reinvented the definition of “cold hard cash” by keeping his $90,000 bribe money in his freezer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.