Led By God

On Monday, March 4, 1805, Thomas Jefferson gave his Second Inaugural Address as president of the United States.

In his closing remarks he painted a provocative parallel between the settling and establishment of the United States following our exodus from tyrants in Europe, and the settling and establishment of ancient Israel following the Israelites* exodus from tyrants in Egypt.

He referred to God as "that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and … goodness[.]"

Because, said he, "the weaknesses of human nature, and the limits of my own understanding, will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to your interests."

Bottom line: He loved his country and countrymen too much to rely only upon his own abilities and understanding.

"I ask you to join with me in supplications that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations." (1)

He was speaking to every American citizen, as president of the United States, in an official capacity, to remind America whence cometh her blessings, how dependent he personally felt upon God, and to express an interest in their prayers that God would help him and their country.

And so, what*s wrong with that? Is this not about humility – something in short supply today? Is this not but an exercise of the inalienable right to speak freely? Is it not pure nonsense to believe that any man becomes less free because another man declares that our liberties come from God (not the state), that man, being imperfect, ought to pray to God for His guidance and blessings?

Just how is it that free expression forces religion down any man*s throat? Where is the harm to a man*s property, or to his life, or to his civic rights?

Here*s the plain truth: Public speech, public confession and public monuments are not manifestations of forced religion, but its opposite.

That such reminders, monuments and testimonials were not deemed by Jefferson as manifestations of forced religion are further witnessed by Jefferson*s proposal for the Great Seal of the United States.

Think of this. Shortly after 1776, he submitted a drawing depicting the aforementioned theme, that is, "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night," with the bold inscription "Israel Led by God*s Pillar of Fire" and, in smaller print, "Liberty under God*s law – Man*s Inalienable Birthright of Freedom." (2)

Again, this provocative parallel. It was a popular belief. He might have discovered it on his own, or maybe he read it in Samuel Sherword*s oft-cited 1776 political sermon, "The Church*s Flight Into the Wilderness." (3)

Franklin introduced a similar drawing for the great seal, depicting Moses standing on the shore extending his hand over the sea, which overwhelmed Pharaoh, while rays from a pillar of fire in the clouds reach to Moses, expressing that he acts by command of the Deity. With this Motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." (4)

These drawings, these speeches were not idols that men must bow down before or perish. Give Jefferson credit. They were, however, reminders that something larger than the state presides over man – and that any man who sets himself in the place of God will have a hot rebellion on his hands.

Excuse me, and excuse Chief Justice Moore, but isn*t this the very rationale for what the founders called a just revolution? Or have we forgotten?

So, here*s a little reminder: Standing up for such beliefs in public does not constitute force in religion – they are only words.

Removing a man from office for defending his belief, however, does in fact constitute an act of force against faith. It is the approach of the communists. It is the approach of the old church-states in Europe.

We have forgotten.

Too many seem to believe that freedom is possible without the institutions that make it possible. As someone who is not religious, I'm not yet naive enough to believe that by disarming religion one promotes anything like freedom.

Quite the opposite. The expression of religion in the public square is an expression of the infallibility of human reason as it relates to politics. We could use more of that, both by the religious and non-religious alike.

What a misleading article.

Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson that Mr. Farrell "forgot" to include:

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.....

that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time

But it does me no injury for my part for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods or no god.It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

Question withn boldness even the existence of god, because if there be one, he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christian.

Jefferson also edited the New Testament to exclude the miracles of Jesus and other supernatural happenings, leaving only the wisdom teachings of Jesus, which he admired.

Doesn't sound like the sort of person who would support Roy Moore and D James Kennedy, does he?

Well now you "forgot" to include some quotes that would not support your view as well. Both sides have an agenda with Jefferson that is based more on obtaining credibility for their respective agendas than for getting at the truth.
Although Thomas Jefferson may have been a great man, but he was not what I would call a model statesman. He was very hypocritcal. In actuality he probably would voice no objection to the ten commandments in public, but he would likley complain in more private venues.

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.