THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION

nonbeliefs.com ^ | Jim Walker

[Enemy Of The State]

THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION

Compiled by Jim Walker

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."

-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)

---

It spite of Christian right attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.

Distortions of history occur in the minds of many Christians whenever they see the word "God" embossed in statue or memorial concrete . For example, those who visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington will read Jefferson's words engraved: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." When they see the word "God" many Christians see this as "proof" of his Christianity without thinking that 'God' can have many definitions ranging from nature to supernatural. Yet how many of them realize that this passage aimed at attacking the tyranny of the Christian clergy of Philadelphia, or that Jefferson's God was not the personal god of Christianity? Those memorial words came from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush's warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President). The complete statement reads as follows:

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny. He thought that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.

If anything can clear of the misconceptions of Jeffersonian history, it can come best from the author himself. Although Jefferson had a complex view of religion, too vast for this article, the following quotes provide a glimpse of how Thomas Jefferson viewed the corruptions of Christianity and religion.

---

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

---

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

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

---

What is it men cannot be made to believe!

-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

---

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

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

---

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

---

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 Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

---

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

---

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

---

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

---

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

---

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

---

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

---

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

---

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

---

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

---

As you say of yourslef, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

---

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

---

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

---

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

---

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

---

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

---

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

---

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

[GVnana]

Bump for later read.

[jwalsh07]

Well, Ron, you can submit anything you want, it sure as heck doesn't make you right. The military is a unique public institution that is thouroughly covered by the Constitution. When you enlist you give up some of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and that is Constitutional.

Let me ask you this Ron. If the teacher leads the class in a recitation of the Declaration of Independence which declares that our rights are granted by the Creator, is he violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution?

[Artist]

Many thanks for an excellent thread. It's been bookmarked.

[RonF]

Let me ask you this Ron. If the teacher leads the class in a recitation of the Declaration of Independence which declares that our rights are granted by the Creator, is he violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution?

Nope. The DOI says what it says. The teacher is teaching history. It would also not be a violation to discuss what is known about the religious beliefs of the writers of the DOI, and how it may have influenced what they wrote.

Now, if the teacher teaches whether or not those religious beliefs are right or wrong, then that would (IMNSHO) be a violation. Leading the students in any kind of religious exercise, or supervising the class while a student did so, would also be a violation.

[RonF]

The military is a unique public institution that is thouroughly covered by the Constitution. When you enlist you give up some of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and that is Constitutional.

A military base is only one example of a tax-supported institution that I don't consider "the public square" (besides which, to be a public square, I'd think that access to a location would not be limited to the military, but be open to the general public). The floor of the Congress is another; only elected officials can speak there. The inside of any Federal office building is yet another; you can't even go in there unless you are an employee, or are entering inside to conduct specific business related to that installation's function. There are numerous tax-supported institutions that, in my opinion, aren't properly described as "the public square", and it seems to me that the public schools are one such.

Now, it seems to me that public parks are "the public square", and the sidewalks in front of federal installations can be "the public square" if proper arrangements are made so as to not block traffic. These are places where one can reasonably expect to address the public with minimal interference. And if you instead choose to publicly address one's God, that's fine too. But I believe that your definition of the "public square" is over-broad.

I make a point of this because I've seen a few people defend government-led or -supervised group prayer in public schools on the basis of the schools being "the public square". It's a fine-sounding phrase, but upon reflection I thought to myself, "What do they mean?". I think of a guy on a soapbox, addressing passers by on whatever comes to mind, or a group holding a rally and making speeches on the issues of the day. So, when you used it, I wanted to see what you meant. I haven't seen a lot of logic applied to what people think the public square is, and what's reasonable to expect there.

[rmlew]

Given that the same Congress which voted on the First Ammendment created had bibles printed, authorised chaplains, held weekly services in Congress, and declared a day of Thanksgiving to celebrate teh Bill of Rights, I believe that they had a very differnt intention with the First Ammendment than the one enshrined after 1954.

The 1878 decision was not used as teh basis of driving religion from the public square. The 1954 reading was. It seems to me that the Reynolds case was legitimate and teh 1954 case on religion in schools was not.

I would also note that nowhere in the Constituion is teh Supreme Court called teh final arbirter of the Consitution. In fact, Congress has the explicit right to take issues out of the range of the USSC.

[ZULU]

I don't know what kind of religion Jefferson followed. The fact that he made mention of the Deity three times in his Declaration of INdependence means he believed in God in some form. I don't believe his use of those terms was mere rhetoric for effect.

However, the overwhelming number of the founders of this country and the inhabitants thereof were God-fearing Christians and the early history of this country reflects that.

The recent efforts to purge God and religion from all aspects of public life are the product of a neo-fascist, crypto-communist left, allowed to raise its vile and ugly head after the crucifixion of the late, great Senator Joe McCarthy, the commie-killer.

[Ditto]

Outside view: Liberty of conscience

By Jerry Bowyer
A UPI Outside view commentary
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 8/24/2002 6:38 AM
View printer-friendly version

PITTSBURGH, Aug. 24 (UPI) -- On President George Washington's Aug. 18, 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation:

Prayer has been banished from school; manger scenes and menorahs have been banished from courtyards and recently the phrase "under God" has been temporarily excised by a lower court from the Pledge of Allegiance.

This has all been done on the basis of the most separationist interpretation of the most separationist sentence, which appeared in the most separationist document written by the most separationist member of the founding generation.

Since the middle of the 20th century the Supreme Court and assorted inferior courts have been building a scaffold of legal precedent regarding the relationship between God and the State. Almost all of this is based on a metaphor employed by Thomas Jefferson in his famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

This is unfortunate for two reasons: first, no set of legal doctrines as pervasive and revolutionary as these should be erected on such a narrow foundation; second, the way it has been used distorts the view of the founding generation towards Church/State relations.

What a shame that the courts have chosen to derive their interpretation of the Constitution almost entirely from a man who had no hand in its drafting --Jefferson was in France at the time -- and whose views on religion were so unusual for his time that he felt the need to conceal them in order to be politically viable.

Perhaps they should have consulted "the indispensable man," George Washington, and his correspondence with the "Hebrew congregation" of Newport, Rhode Island, which was exchanged 211 years ago this week.

Washington had been traveling in Rhode Island in August of 1790 and had the opportunity to meet with some of the members of the town's synagogue. Shortly thereafter the Warden of the congregation, Moses Seixas, sent a letter of appreciation for the President on their behalf. What strikes modern ears about the letter is the richness, vibrancy and boldness of religious expression:

"With pleasure we reflect on those days and -- those days of difficulty, & danger when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword, shielded your head in the day of battle: and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.

"Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People -- a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance--but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental Machine: This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual Confidence and Publick Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies Of Heaven and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.

"For all the Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal and benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Antient of Days, the great preserver of Men -- beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: and, when like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality."

A few things strike the eyes of the modern reader.

The Jews of Newport were proudly particularist; they didn't speak in general terms about a broad monotheism or about the place of "religion" or "spirituality" in American life.

Instead they cited the books of Joshua and Daniel specifying that the God that they were talking about was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Further, they did this, not inside the walls of the congregation, but in an official communication with the President of the United States and in his capacity as President, not his capacity as a private citizen.

Finally, rather than treating religious expressions in public life as threats to religious liberty, the Jews of Rhode Island in 1790 saw their liberty as derived from "the Antient of Days."

George Washington's reply below makes one wonder how American life would be different if her courts had turned to this letter -- written by a man without whose support the Constitution would have had no chance of being ratified -- rather than to Jefferson's letter as a source to understand the United States Constitution.

The substance of Washington's reply is as follows:

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

"It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."

Again, we find an explicitness of religious expression that would be rebuked by the editorial staff of many newspapers if it appeared on presidential letterhead today.

More importantly we find the idea of Liberty of Conscience which is a more elegant and clear formulation of the religious question then Jefferson's metaphorical wall.

This principle puts Washington in the mainstream of his generation.

On the right you had the advocates of toleration like Patrick Henry who believed that America should have been explicitly subordinated to Christianity in its Constitution. In this view non-Christians were to be "tolerated" although they were at variance from the American establishment.

On the left you had the separationists like Jefferson who believed that the institution of the Church would shortly decline from its position of cultural leadership and should be separated from government at all levels.

Of course, even Jefferson didn't go as far as his modern interpreters, as he still left room for discourse about God in the public sphere -- for instance in his own Declaration of Independence -- and required only that such expressions be non-sectarian.

Jefferson's metaphor brings confusion: do our days of Thanksgiving violations of the separation? Are all religious expressions, even those not associative with the institution of the church, violations of the separation between Church and State? What about institutions that involve areas of overlap between Church and State, for instance, church-run soup kitchens, drug and alcohol programs, and schools which receive public support?

Washington's framework, while still leaving some gray areas, is much simpler.

Every human being possesses an inherent right to liberty of conscience; government may not compel them to accept or reject any beliefs, religious or otherwise. And citizens shall be permitted to act on their beliefs "so long as they demean themselves as good citizens" and do not attempt to coerce the beliefs of others. Quick, somebody please fax a copy of The Letter to the Hebrew Congregation over to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

-- Jerry Bowyer is host of a radio program on WPTT radio in Pittsburgh.

-- "Outside View" commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.

Copyright © 2002 United Press International
 

Source: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020821-032236-7769r

[Spirited]

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237"

I feel that this most accurately summarizes the man's belief systems. Let us not forget that he had the right to develop in faith and change as regards its practise. Perhaps one can take an early quote from a time when certain areas of his belief were undeveloped or underformed. Yet later quotes reveal a maturing man of faith.

If you can pin a man to what he once believed and then show that he held, years later, only all of the same you have happened upon one failed in faith or dead. God expects development and maturing of faith; that necessitates change.

I think his problem was the charicature of God which was presented in churches by clergy so that the god whom people served was not at all God by any stretch of his knowledge of that God.

Scripture puts it this way, "Work out your own salvation wtih fear and trembling". This man more than most understood that we answer INDIVIDUALLY to the one omnipotent God. We are ultimately responsible for whatever God has taught (revealed to) us about himself, not that upon which He supposedly lead some committee of the clergy to agree.

[moteineye]

No it is you, the MINORITY that is trying to shove your opinion on the majority. You want it all your way. You are pulling in hostility because covertly and incovertly you are hostile.

[truth_seeker]

That is why America is collapsing.

To reverse America's collapse, which version of Christianity would you recommend?

Why would your particular recommended version be most effective, in reversing the collapse of America?

American Indians might argue the collapse of America started, when Christian Europeans brought new diseases.

Some might argue with your claim that America is collapsing. The country and its people are probably among the most humane, towards others, in world history.

What instructions can be found in the New Testament, concerning "the state?" Would that not be the supreme source, and not the American Constitution (a document of mere mortal, fallible men)?

[Looking for Diogenes]

"We were founded not as a haven for a particular religion (as Israel was), but as a haven for freedom, including freedom of religion."

You see the more we have CRAP like this shoved down our throat the more mobolized we become.

What crap are you referring to? If you think religious freedom is crap, I don't think you understand America, why it was founded, how it was founded, or why it has succeeded.

[Enemy Of The State]

"No it is you, the MINORITY that is trying to shove your opinion on the majority. You want it all your way. You are pulling in hostility because covertly and incovertly you are hostile."

Gee..thanks for attempting to psychoanalyze me but I wouldnt quit your day job just yet. You couldnt be any farther from the truth if you are trying to direct your comments at me personally because I am perfectly content to live among anyone regardless of their religion so long as they dont try to force it upon me.

As for others who are constantly trying to push christianity out of view from public society, I dont know what their problem is but I do not contribute to their cause. For the most part, the US is considered a "Christian" nation and I have no problem with that at all. Even I can see that as our society has moved away from the foundation that was built on a "christian" background, our morals and our values have steadily declined. I have always believed that Liberalism is a disease of the worst kind. Though I do not follow any single form of religious faith, I do believe in an almighty creator that is greater than I and I do not object to any other mans belief if it makes him a better person so long as he doesnt try to force it on me.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Given that the same Congress which voted on the First Amendment created had bibles printed, authorised chaplains, held weekly services in Congress, and declared a day of Thanksgiving to celebrate the Bill of Rights, I believe that they had a very different intention with the First Amendment than the one enshrined after 1954.

It has certainly been refined, but I think it is the same intention. Our visions of the Fourth and Fifth and Tenth amendments have also been refined. That is what two hundred and ten years of case law and history will do.

And Congress still has chaplains. And we have a Thanksgiving Day every year. And we subsidize the printing of Bibles by tax-exempt churches.

It seems to me that the Reynolds case was legitimate and teh 1954 case on religion in schools was not.

Are you saying that the Reynolds Court was correct to use the Danbury Baptist letter as a guide? But that the 1954 court was wrong to use Reynolds as a precedent? And what 1954 case are you referring to?

I would also note that nowhere in the Constituion is teh Supreme Court called teh final arbirter of the Consitution. In fact, Congress has the explicit right to take issues out of the range of the USSC.

Ever since Marbury Congresses, Presidents, and the rest of the government have all acknowldeged the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. Even inferior courts make constitutional decisions, following USSC precedents.

The Constitution bases our government on a system of checks and balances. There are plenty of checks of judicial power. If Congress and the President are in agreement that they dispute a Supreme Court interpretation they have at least four options:
1. Pass a new amendment (with the consent of the states).
2. Wait for the old justices to retire and appoint more agreeable ones.
3. Expand the number of justices on the court and appoint more agreeable ones.
4. Explicitly change the jurisdiction of the court.

[ZULU]

Sure, the teachers hate McCarthy. Why? The NEA is a colection of mysogynistic, anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-western civilization, anti-American leftists, that's why. That's also why college professors, for the most part, the left-wing media, and the even further left-wing goons who run Hollyweird hate Joe McCarthy.

BY THEIR ENEMIES YE SHALL KNOW THEM!!

[hoosierskypilot]

"...which version of Christianity would you recommend..."

That's a good question. Actually, I think we're thinking in terms of, not a state religion, but functioning upon morals, values and ethics typical of Christianity.

The state has a religion. It appears to be humanism. Since we (nationally) embraced this religion, the plagues of society have skyrocketed: suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, drug addiction, homosexuality, broken homes, etc.

The state supports humanism, but represses any religious expression resembling Christianity. That violates the first Amendment. We need to do what the Constitution allows, viz., that the state will not interfere with the free exercise of religion in any area of our society. That's a far cry from what we've got, where children are forbidden from prayer, Bible reading, etc., on school grounds.

Concerning instructions in the Bible to the state:
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Rom 13:3-4

The government is to be a terror to evil workers. That includes but, is not limited to, capital punishment. (Hence, the "sword") This presupposes the government in question is "good."

But in our society, evil workers have greater influence. After all, did we not elect a corrupt, lying pervert to the office of president for two terms? (I.e., Clinton) Are we not wringing our hands over the possibility of his wife (who, we are told, is worse than he) being elected to the presidency? Are not homosexuals allowed into many schools to talk about the suitability of their lifestyle? This is not right.

What brand of Christianity? I would choose even the weakest "brand" of Christianity over a government that acknowledges man as the measure of all things. I would choose the weakest "brand" of Christianity over what we have.

[Enemy Of The State]

"No it is you, the MINORITY that is trying to shove your opinion on the majority. "

Oh yes, I almost forgot...I dont know where you went to school but the last time I checked...The United States was still a Republic and in a REPUBLIC, the Majority does not rule and thank goodness for that because your "Majority" would probably still be burning people at the stake for using your "Gods" name in vane or refusing to subscribe to your ideals in faith. :-)

Just take a few moments and say it to yourself...the US is a Republic....The US is a Republic...the US is a Republic.

:) Have a nice day!